Should Women Be Included In The Draft?

[Lilllabettt]

I'm against women in combat, and not just because we can't throw grenades far enough, either. It has more to do with the special privilege granted to women. Women generate other human beings, in their own bodies. Violence against them therefore [i]especially[/i] violates that which human beings should hold most sacred: Life.

It's also destructive to morale. In our society, women represent motherhood; peace, safety, Thanksgiving dinner and apple pie. If a soldier sees that die in front of him, his hope for the future and return to normalcy is diminished.

My little bro is a Marine. Thems is hard core.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1685964' date='Oct 25 2008, 12:37 PM']I'm against women in combat, and not just because we can't throw grenades far enough, either. It has more to do with the special privilege granted to women. Women generate other human beings, in their own bodies. Violence against them therefore [i]especially[/i] violates that which human beings should hold most sacred: Life.

It's also destructive to morale. In our society, women represent motherhood; peace, safety, Thanksgiving dinner and apple pie. If a soldier sees that die in front of him, his hope for the future and return to normalcy is diminished.

My little bro is a Marine. Thems is hard core.[/quote]

Not all women want to have children.

And men [i]do[/i] contribute to having children too.

Edit:

I also want to say that it's not particularly right to stereotype all women as representing motherhood. Not all of us fit into this nice little label.

(I'm on an editing role here, sorry.) I don't want that comment to offend. I'm just saying that if you equate all women = motherhood, then you should also equate all men = fatherhood.

Like I said, not all women want to have children. I personally don't, and I don't see myself being a mother, because I just don't want children. So where do I fit in? Certainly not under "motherhood."

Edited October 25, 2008 by HisChildForever

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685648' date='Oct 24 2008, 07:12 PM']I certainly hope you are not implying that women would serve as a [i]sexual[/i] distraction - that is, male soldiers would be more interested in flirting/starting a relationship than concentrating on their duty. Honestly, any man deliberately seeking a relationship (with a woman) while, for example, over in Iraq seriously has his priorities wrong. (I'm not saying it's wrong if you meet each other and really hit it off, I'm saying if a man starts making fantasies up in his head.) It would be the man's fault, not the woman's for simply wanting to also protect her country.[/quote]

First, no one said it would be the woman's fault, so no need to get defensive, but the point remains that regardless of who is to blame, men would be distracted. Should they be? No. Concupiscence tells us that there is a chance for them to be distracted, and the state of our culture shows us that there would DEFINITELY be distractions. You stated that the man would have his priorities wrong. Well... look at our culture... [b]most[/b] men have their priorities wrong. Look at pornography even among married men... that's a wrong priority. Look at alcohol, drug, gambling, and other addictions. There again are wrong priorities.

It is the same thing with immodest dress (except that immodest dress is sinful for the woman). The man should not fall into lust upon looking at her, yet he does. It is not (completely) the woman's fault, as the man ought to have greater control over his passions, yet he still fails. The same would happen in a military situation. Although the man ought not to be side tracked by the women he is serving with (and it is not the woman's fault at all), he still will be.


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685648' date='Oct 24 2008, 07:12 PM']The answer is men because men are more aggressive and violent than women - this points back to what I was saying earlier. It's practically acceptable for a young man to get into a violent fight, to race his car like a lunatic, and to take out his emotions in a "manly" way. The current thought is that unemployed men commit crimes because they are ashamed of their financial situation since society calls them the "breadwinner." But by the way, the amount of female inmates in our country have been increasing, it's just that women do not commit as many violent crimes as men do.[/quote]

Honestly, another reason we're seeing more women in jail, is because gender roles are being switched. The line between men and women is blurring, women are becoming more like men, and men more like women. This doesn't mean men are becoming "emotional sissy's" (not saying that women are), but it means men are becoming passive and followers as opposed to active leaders. Biblically women play a [b]more[/b] passive role and a [b]more[/b] following position. That is not to say that you have no women that take action or step up to take charge when needed (Look at St. Joan of Arc). Women however, in a lot of circumstances are becoming the [b]primary[/b] leaders and [b]primary[/b] active workers. This isn't completely the fault of women, nor completely the fault of men. By men being less active and more passive, there is a role that needs to be filled, and women start filling it, but at the same time, by women becoming more active it leaves less for men to do and they become more passive.

As women become more like men, they start committing more violent crimes as well. They become more willing to break laws and more aggressive (either physically or in other ways).

There are still CLEAR gender roles by nature. Little boys can make anything they see into a weapon, and little girls can make anything they see into a family. In a test, a boy was given barbie dolls to play with, and he started playing war with them and ripping limbs and heads off. A girl was given toy trucks and soldiers to play with, and she started naming them things like "momma truck, daddy truck, and baby truck". Completely naturally, this is the way men and women are wired.


This also means men are more wired for an active defending position and women more for a care giving position. A draft for women? By no means. As a matter of fact, I would say I don't think women should be combat in any scenario. I think they are necessary for the military, but as medics and nurses out of combat (not a combat medic). Are there women capable of serving combat zones? Yes, but I don't think they should as it goes against gender roles and confuses the nature of men and women. It is bad for society.


Don't rip on me too much!

-Marcus

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685965' date='Oct 25 2008, 09:42 AM']Not all women want to have children.

And men [i]do[/i] contribute to having children too.

Edit:

I also want to say that it's not particularly right to stereotype all women as representing motherhood. Not all of us fit into this nice little label.

(I'm on an editing role here, sorry.) I don't want that comment to offend. I'm just saying that if you equate all women = motherhood, then you should also equate all men = fatherhood.

Like I said, not all women want to have children. I personally don't, and I don't see myself being a mother, because I just don't want children. So where do I fit in? Certainly not under "motherhood."[/quote]


Not all women may want to have children, but all women by nature are mothers, AND all men by nature are fathers. Whether this becomes manifested physically, spiritually, or emotionally it doesn't matter. Priests father their parishes, sisters become spiritual mothers for many, lay singles by some act of service become father/mother. At least all OUGHT to fulfill these rolls.

EVEN the cloistered or the hermit fulfills the roll of father/mother someway (commonly through spiritual children that they pray for). There is an innate part of human nature that longs to be fulfilled in men and women and cannot be fulfilled without taking on the roll of father or mother in SOME way.

Model for all women: Mary, spiritual mother of the world and mother of the God-Man
Model for all men: Jesus (or on a non-divine level, St. Joseph who is the highest of saints next to Mary alone), who is seen typified in the Old Testament by father figures such as Abraham who was a father to many nations. Also in a sense, father of the Church. St. Joseph who was father of the God-Man.

In Jesus and Mary you see the perfection of both man and woman, and man nor woman could be perfect without fulfilling father or motherhood.

So really... I do equate all women motherhood AND all men fatherhood.

heh

Marcus

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1685969' date='Oct 25 2008, 12:49 PM']It is the same thing with immodest dress (except that immodest dress is sinful for the woman). The man should not fall into lust upon looking at her, yet he does. It is not (completely) the woman's fault, as the man ought to have greater control over his passions, yet he still fails. The same would happen in a military situation. Although the man ought not to be side tracked by the women he is serving with (and it is not the woman's fault at all), he still will be.[/quote]

Please tell me you are joking. A woman in full gear, fighting side-by-side with a fellow [male] soldier, can inspire a man to lust? This is absolutely ridiculous. If the man lusts, it is his problem, just like I said.


[quote]Honestly, another reason we're seeing more women in jail, is because gender roles are being switched. The line between men and women is blurring, women are becoming more like men, and men more like women.[/quote]

If this was the case, then [b]more[/b] women and [b]less[/b] men would be filling up our correctional institutions.

I'm sorry you think that women are becoming more like men. I must be a "man" to you. I want a career. I don't want to get married. And if I ever got married, I would work. This is what I want to do, as an individual. It has [b]nothing[/b] to do with my gender. Half the things I hear on this website absolutely [b]shock[/b] me when it comes to women.

[quote]Women however, in a lot of circumstances are becoming the [b]primary[/b] leaders and [b]primary[/b] active workers.[/quote]

As if this is so terrible.

[quote]This isn't completely the fault of women, nor completely the fault of men. By men being less active and more passive, there is a role that needs to be filled, and women start filling it, but at the same time, [b]by women becoming more active it leaves less for men to do and they become more passive.[/b][/quote]

No it doesn't. Are you implying that men are intimidated by women in the work force? Why?

Why must we be defined by what bodies we're in? I'm supposed to neglect my dreams and aspirations by fitting into the typical, female stereotype you seem to be promoting?

[quote]As women become more like men, they start committing more violent crimes as well. They become more willing to break laws and more aggressive (either physically or in other ways).[/quote]

I want reliable statistics.

[quote]There are still CLEAR gender roles by nature. Little boys can make anything they see into a weapon, and little girls can make anything they see into a family. In a test, a boy was given barbie dolls to play with, and he started playing war with them and ripping limbs and heads off. A girl was given toy trucks and soldiers to play with, and she started naming them things like "momma truck, daddy truck, and baby truck". Completely naturally, this is the way men and women are wired.[/quote]

I certainly don't feel "wired" this way.


[quote]This also means men are more wired for an active defending position and women more for a care giving position. A draft for women? By no means. As a matter of fact, I would say I don't think women should be combat in any scenario. I think they are necessary for the military, but as medics and nurses out of combat (not a combat medic). Are there women capable of serving combat zones? Yes, but I don't think they should as it goes against gender roles and confuses the nature of men and women. It is bad for society.[/quote]

What year are we in again? It's BAD for SOCIETY for women to SERVE in the military?! Amazing.

I think men are just threatened because we're no longer allowing ourselves to be treated as inferiors.

Edited October 25, 2008 by HisChildForever

[philothea]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685977' date='Oct 25 2008, 01:00 PM'][quote name='Slappo' post='1685969' date='Oct 25 2008, 12:49 PM']
There are still CLEAR gender roles by nature. Little boys can make anything they see into a weapon, and little girls can make anything they see into a family. In a test, a boy was given barbie dolls to play with, and he started playing war with them and ripping limbs and heads off. A girl was given toy trucks and soldiers to play with, and she started naming them things like "momma truck, daddy truck, and baby truck". Completely naturally, this is the way men and women are wired.[/quote]

I certainly don't feel "wired" this way.
[/quote]
Likewise!

It's very hard to separate cultural assumptions, biologically-based trends, and personal filters when it comes to gender roles. It'd be wise to not make blanket statements about any groups as large and diverse as males and females. At least, not without some good citations.

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685977' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:00 AM']Please tell me you are joking. A woman in full gear, fighting side-by-side with a fellow [male] soldier, can inspire a man to lust? This is absolutely ridiculous. If the man lusts, it is his problem, just like I said.[/quote]

Your not paying attention to what I am saying. I never said the men would be lusting after women dressed in full combat gear because of their looks. I said they would be SIDE TRACKED. They would get DISTRACTED. They would want to flirt, talk, be cute with them, etc (NOT all men, but some at least). That has nothing to do with immodesty. Immodesty was used as an example to show that it isn't the woman's fault that the man is side tracked by her serving next to him in the military, but rather a fault of the man. A fault that we can GUARANTEE will be there regardless of who is to blame. If men are to blame, it doesn't change the fact that they WILL be side tracked which becomes a SAFETY hazard in a combat or war situation. So yes, the men would be to blame, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes the situation DANGEROUS for both men AND women. The only real solution would be to either not have men serve, or not have women serve. To try and fix the problem psychologically so that the men wouldn't be side tracked would never work (no cure for concupiscence until you push up daisies with a tombstone).


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685977' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:00 AM']If this was the case, then [b]more[/b] women and [b]less[/b] men would be filling up our correctional institutions.[/quote]

Men by nature are still more manly then women can be, therefore women could never completely override the male gender, and women are still more womenly then men can be and therefore men could never do the same to women. You see MORE women entering prison than before BECAUSE of this, this doesn't mean ALL women are becoming men and ALL men are becoming women. You see MORE women becoming men, and MORE men becoming women. (caps are for emphasis not expressing anger or frustration btw).


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685977' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:00 AM']I'm sorry you think that women are becoming more like men. I must be a "man" to you. I want a career. I don't want to get married. And if I ever got married, I would work. This is what I want to do, as an individual. It has [b]nothing[/b] to do with my gender. Half the things I hear on this website absolutely [b]shock[/b] me when it comes to women.[/quote]
Everything has to do with one's gender as it is an inseparable part of one's very person hood. Even in heaven men will still be men and women will still be women (glorified human bodies still have a sex).


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685977' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:00 AM']As if this is so terrible.[/quote]
It is only so terrible insofar as it goes against human nature and the way God created man and woman to be.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685977' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:00 AM']No it doesn't. Are you implying that men are intimidated by women in the work force? Why?[/quote]
Not at all implying men are intimidated by women in the work force. I am saying that as women become more active, men become more passive. If EVERYONE played an active roll in society it would be utter chaos. There is a need to have passive and active people, it is part of balance. If women aren't being passive, then men will slowly (very slowly) start to take on a more passive role and vice versa.


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685977' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:00 AM']Why must we be defined by what bodies we're in? I'm supposed to neglect my dreams and aspirations by fitting into the typical, female stereotype you seem to be promoting?[/quote]

We must be defined by what bodies we are in because we are not just souls. We are not even part body and part soul, but a body soul unity. St. Thomas Aquinas writes on this very well. Because our bodies are inseparable from our souls (which is why in the second coming our bodies are resurrected and become glorified and only THEN are we fully fulfilled). The saints in heaven still long for their glorified bodies and will be even more joy filled when they receive them.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685977' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:00 AM']I want reliable statistics.[/quote]
Can't give you any. Sorry.


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685977' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:00 AM']I certainly don't feel "wired" this way.[/quote]
Society no longer raises men and women this way (ergo the confusion among gender roles). Your parents (most likely, I mean no disrespect whatsoever to them), nor your school, nor the rest of the environment around you fostered normal growth within femininity or masculinity (which is also an argument for why we see more homosexual tendencies arising). It is near impossible to find a proper environment in the American culture to foster normal growth.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685977' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:00 AM']What year are we in again? It's BAD for SOCIETY for women to SERVE in the military?! Amazing.[/quote]
We're in the year 2008. It is not bad for society for women to serve in the military. If you reread what I wrote I actually encouraged it. It is bad for women to serve in COMBAT situations in the military.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685977' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:00 AM']I think men are just threatened because we're no longer allowing ourselves to be treated as inferiors.[/quote]
I'm thankful that women no longer allow themselves to be treated as inferiors. It isn't inferior for a man to not be able to be pregnant, and it isn't inferior for a woman not to be able to serve in combat situations in a war zone.

Marcus

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685977' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:00 PM']Please tell me you are joking. A woman in full gear, fighting side-by-side with a fellow [male] soldier, can inspire a man to lust? This is absolutely ridiculous. If the man lusts, it is his problem, just like I said.[/quote]

Don't be silly. Women in combat are just as prone to lust as men are. I've known female soldiers who came back from Iraq because they got pregnant over there. THAT most certainly wasn't all the man's doing.

ETA: Also, you have to remember they aren't in full combat gear 24/7. Once some sort of relationship has been fostered it effects people. If a soldier sees his girlfriend being shot at, full combat gear or no, he's going to be distracted and rattled by that. That's just common sense.

[Slappo]

[quote name='philothea' post='1685986' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:17 AM']I certainly don't feel "wired" this way.

Likewise!

It's very hard to separate cultural assumptions, biologically-based trends, and personal filters when it comes to gender roles. It'd be wise to not make blanket statements about any groups as large and diverse as males and females. At least, not without some good citations.[/quote]

Maybe I forgot to add it in, but the boys playing with barbies and girls playing with cars and trucks was an actual psychological study that was intended to prove that women and men are the same and it is only based on how they are raised that they are different. It obviously backfired. I don't have the citation, but if someone is SUPER SUPER interested I could look it up (It would take a lot of effort and backtracking, and I may not even be able to find it, but I'll try if you really want. It'd take a week at least I think.)

That isn't a cultural assumption.

[HisChildForever]

[quote][b]You see MORE women entering prison than before BECAUSE of this,[/b] this doesn't mean ALL women are becoming men and ALL men are becoming women. You see MORE women becoming men, and MORE men becoming women. (caps are for emphasis not expressing anger or frustration btw).[/quote]

I can not accept this without a valid source. Otherwise, it is all your opinion and you can not make it sound like fact. I am studying Criminal Justice in school. In fact, I am currently in a Penology course. We have discussed females in jail and prison and not once did this study of yours come up. (That more women are in prison because they are "acting like men.")


[quote]It is only so terrible insofar as it goes against human nature and the way God created man and woman to be.[/quote]

I know precisely how God created man and woman to be. In fact, if you do some digging around the threads, you will find that Raphael explains this beautifully, without either gender sounding inferior. You, however, are coming across much differently.


[quote]Not at all implying men are intimidated by women in the work force. I am saying that as women become more active, men become more passive.[/quote]

But why are the men becoming more passive because the women are becoming more active? (Oh, and I want a nice psychological article on this, by the way.) If not intimidation, what?

[quote]If EVERYONE played an active roll in society it would be utter chaos. There is a need to have passive and active people, it is part of balance. If women aren't being passive, then men will slowly (very slowly) start to take on a more passive role and vice versa.[/quote]

Says who? This is all opinion. Men can not be passive and active, and women can not be passive and active?

[quote]Can't give you any. Sorry.[/quote]

Without sources, all I am getting here is opinion.


[quote]Society no longer raises men and women this way (ergo the confusion among gender roles). Your parents (most likely, I mean no disrespect whatsoever to them), nor your school, nor the rest of the environment around you fostered normal growth within femininity or masculinity (which is also an argument for why we see more homosexual tendencies arising). [b]It is near impossible to find a proper environment in the American culture to foster normal growth.[/b][/quote]

Ohhh, okay. So women becoming more "active" in our society are part of the reason why homosexuality is "arising"? I am pretty sure that homosexuality is referenced in Scriptures [b]numerous[/b] times when society was very [b]patriarchal[/b].

And how [b]dare[/b] you tell me that my parents, and my school, and my environment, did not "foster" "normal growth" as if I am some [b]abnormal[/b] freak for wanting a career instead of a husband and a domesticated role?! You [b]honestly[/b] believe the old "women in the kitchen," don't you?

I emphasized your last sentence for a reason. Maybe "normal growth" to you is, oh, Islamic cultures, that force women to cover up and keep silent?

[quote name='Slappo' post='1685992' date='Oct 25 2008, 01:29 PM']Maybe I forgot to add it in, but the boys playing with barbies and girls playing with cars and trucks was an actual psychological study that was intended to prove that women and men are the same and it is only based on how they are raised that they are different. It obviously backfired. I don't have the citation, but if someone is SUPER SUPER interested I could look it up (It would take a lot of effort and backtracking, and I may not even be able to find it, but I'll try if you really want. It'd take a week at least I think.)

That isn't a cultural assumption.[/quote]

Oh, I should also add that my other area of study is Psychology. I know vaguely of what you are referring to. But guess what? That's one study. And unless the study can be successfully replicated multiple times, it holds no definitive value.

Here is an article, and it didn't take me a week to find it. It has to do with monkeys, not human beings, however.

[url="http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/why-do-boys-and-girls-prefer-different-toys"]http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-...-different-toys[/url]
[quote]In a forthcoming article in Hormones and Behavior, Janice M. Hassett, Erin R. Siebert, and Kim Wallen, of Emory University, replicate the sex preferences in toys among members of another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study shows that, when given a choice between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (such as a wagon, a truck, and a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (such as Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, and a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference for the masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for the feminine toys, but the difference in their preference is not statistically significant.[/quote]

Sounds like it proves your point. But like one user commented,

[quote]Of course female monkeys will be interested in toys that resemble infants. Did the scientists examine whether female monkeys prefer dress-up toys, the colors pink and purple, or Barbie dolls? Did they explore whether male monkeys might be interested in playing with "male" toys that DIDN't roll? The female preference for dolls was not even statistically significant. At this point, it is ridiculously presumptuous to claim, on the basis of a handful of limited studies, that "it is becoming less and less likely that 'gender socialization' is the reason why boys and girls prefer different toys." Quite the opposite; gender socialization has a LOT to say about toy preferences--and a lot more studies to provide evidence.[/quote]

[Maggyie]

ABC News did a special on the subject of boys and girls being different. The reporter was John Stossel, they followed the progress of several clinical sociological experiments and interviewed experts. Basically it was a slam dunk that women and men are hardwired differently, although they certainly highlighted that there are exceptions to the rule! Blanket statements about any group never work perfectly. A more interesting question is what leads to these exceptions? If a female is more aggressive or tomboyish than her peers, is this due to overexposure to a certain kind of hormone in the womb, like testosterone? What about boys who are more passive? Is it estrogen? Probably a combo of chemicals and nurturing.

My favorite part of the report was when Stossel interviewed a few sets of kids on the subject. "Do YOU think boys are different from girls?" The kids who were kindergarten age all answered "oh no, boys and girls are equal, they are exactly the same," in that rote voice kids use when they've been taught to say something. I mean it was obvious they had been coached by parents who didn't want people watching the show to think they were raising their kids to be sexist! Then Stossel went and talked to some younger kids who weren't old enough to need indoctrination yet, and they were bursting out with stuff like "Girls don't like mud!" "Boys like to yell!"

If you want to by a copy of the program from ABC you can do so here:

[url="http://abcnewsstore.go.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/DSIProductDisplay?catalogId=11002&storeId=20051&productId=2011483&langId=-1&categoryId=100029"]http://abcnewsstore.go.com/webapp/wcs/stor...tegoryId=100029[/url]

Edited October 25, 2008 by Maggie

[Lilllabettt]

I'm not saying all women want to be mothers. Not physically. I know I don't. I can't anyway, so that works out dandy.

I don't want to comment about how particular women shouldn't be drafted, or put in combat positions. My comments are about women in general.

Women, in general, have the potential to have souls born inside of them. Inside their bodies.

That is huge. I'm not saying men's bodies aren't important and sacred, too.

But women's bodies are designed to gestate new life. To nurture it. Her body provides a warm, safe place for a helpless person to find refuge. A woman's body points to life, to peace. It is the place where God intervenes in the world and heaven touches earth.

Violence against that potential is just ... especially repulsive. Almost sacrilegious.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Lilllabettt

[HisChildForever]

I would like to talk about the exceptions to this rule. It should not be assumed that every female who does not want to be the stereotypical housewife is a tomboy, nor should it be assumed that every male who is not the stereotypical "tough guy" is some "girly wimp."

I have already expressed that I am very career-orientated and uninterested in marriage and children. Does this make me a "bad" woman by your standards, Slappo?

And now what if I go on to tell you that I am an absolute "girly-girl" who dyes my hair blonde, paints my nails compulsively, my favorite color is bright pink, and I wear make-up? Do I satisfy your standards now? Or is it the unthinkable for a "girly" woman to be pursuing a "manly" life? Are you still assuming that my parents and my environment raised me "wrong"?

Do you also believe in dress codes for men and women? Women are not to wear jeans, or sweats? Maybe women wearing jeans have promoted homosexuality! And women wearing jeans have promoted men to wear skirts! Women must be the bane of all humankind for not sticking to the kitchen, shame on us.

Oh, I also can't cook for my life. Nor am I interested in cooking. I might as well banish myself for acting like a "man" at this point.

Edited October 25, 2008 by HisChildForever

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1686003' date='Oct 25 2008, 03:08 PM']I would like to talk about the exceptions to this rule. It should not be assumed that every female who does not want to be the stereotypical housewife is a tomboy, nor should it be assumed that every male who is not the stereotypical "tough guy" is some "girly wimp."

I have already expressed that I am very career-orientated and uninterested in marriage and children. Does this make me a "bad" woman by your standards, Slappo?

And now what if I go on to tell you that I am an absolute "girly-girl" who dyes my hair blonde, paints my nails compulsively, my favorite color is bright pink, and I wear make-up? Do I satisfy your standards now? Or is it the unthinkable for a "girly" woman to be pursuing a "manly" life? Are you still assuming that my parents and my environment raised me "wrong"?

Do you also believe in dress codes for men and women? Women are not to wear jeans, or sweats? Maybe women wearing jeans is what has been promoting homosexuality![/quote]

If you want to pursue this start another thread. This doesn't relate to women in combat.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1686005' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:11 PM']If you want to pursue this start another thread. This doesn't relate to women in combat.[/quote]

But everything I said relates to what Slappo has been saying. He claimed that men and women getting their "gender roles" messed up (i.e., women serving in combat positions) has increased homosexuality. He also had the audacity to suggest that the reason why I am more into having a career than having a family is because I was improperly raised and am thus "confused" about my "place" in the world.