Should Women Be Included In The Draft?

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1686009' date='Oct 25 2008, 03:14 PM']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.[/quote]

He used his argument to show why he didn't think women should be in combat. Not sure how your love for nail polish figures into that.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1685990' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:26 PM']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.[/quote]

I have seen this too. I have actually heard of a case where the male soldier had a wife back home and he was having an affair with a female soldier on the base in Iraq. Can you imagine the mistress getting pregnant and getting sent back home and confronting the loyal spouse with a baby.

Having women in the military causes the same problems that having homosexuals in the military would. Potential sexual relationships + armed forces causes huge morale problems and completely undermines the mission. I don't think women choosing to serve is wrong, I just think it is inefficient, and no way is the military going to add women to the draft and increase their headaches. Barring the invasion of the Chesapeake, as somebody said earlier!

Edited October 25, 2008 by Maggie

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685997' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:51 AM']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]
Honestly.... then don't accept it. I've never claimed that I'm 100% Right. Debate threads are always full of opinions. And of COURSE you'll never find a study that women are acting more like men... that would be "sexist" according to current American standards and therefore the school could probably get sued for it unless it's a private school, in which case it still might be able to (not too familiar with law statues).


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685997' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:51 AM']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] I've never meant to come off as women being inferior, and if I did, I apologize. If you notice at the bottom of my last post I said I'm THANKFUL that women aren't letting themselves be treated as inferior (if I'm thankful, I obviously wouldn't be supporting, or participating in making women feel more inferior). So, my apologies.


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685997' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:51 AM']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]
It isn't really so much because women are becoming more active, more because society is trying to "equalize" men and women, and instead of actually trying to make them equal, they are trying to make them the same. There is a big difference between sameness and equality. An American dollar is equal to 1.05 canadian (NOT FACTUAL economic statistics, just examples), but the american dollar is not the SAME as the canadian 1.05 (you couldn't use that canadian money in most american vending machines).


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685997' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:51 AM']Says who? This is all opinion. Men can not be passive and active, and women can not be passive and active?[/quote]
No gender is completley passive or completely active, but there is a greater sense of an active role among men, and a passive role among women, this is being blurred. And yes it is all my opinion, but that isn't to say my opinion isn't well founded on life principles. Again, that's a lot of what the debate thread is about.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685997' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:51 AM']Without sources, all I am getting here is opinion.[/quote]
Sorry, don't have time, or the desire to do the effort to find sources, especially when such conservative opinions will be harder to find the sources for simply because very few have been done.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685997' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:51 AM']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].[/quote]
No. Women becoming more active, and men becoming more passive are blurring gender roles, and blurred gender roles are A cause of a RISE in homosexual tendencies. Yes there is homosexuality found in scriptures, that's why I specified a RISE in tendencies.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685997' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:51 AM']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?[/quote]
Okay, parents I said was completely no offense meant to your parents, I'm sure 99% of parents don't completely foster this. Mine didn't, and that isn't to rag on my own parents either. My parents weren't raised with a strong understanding either. Maybe your parents were, and if they were then set that aside. Your environment is a DEFINITE because you are part of a 1st world country and that means media. Media means whatever environment you are in... I'm in most of the same thing too. The AMERICAN environment (assuming your american, but even European and Canadian, any Western country really) does not foster this. Your school, unless you were homeschooled, is directly affected by the environment around it and therefore plays a role too. There was no personal attack involved, so to assume I mean you are abnormal is ridiculous. In a sense though, who ISN'T abnormal, we all have original sin, and that is NOT normal, abnormal means AWAY from normal. In the sense that I have a fallen nature, and an unfallen nature is normal, I am abnormal, the question is how is it manifested? In the country of American as a whole, one of these manifestations is through mixed gender roles.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685997' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:51 AM']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]
No, that isn't normal either, that removes the dignity of the human person. Now you're pulling things out of nowhere.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685997' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:51 AM']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.[/quote]
As a psych major, or studying psych, you should know that NO study has a definitive value in the sense that it can actually prove anything. It can only show statistics. No matter how many times you couple smoking with lung cancer, you still haven't factually proven lung cancer to be caused by smoking, you have simply coupled smoking with lung cancer in studies. No hard evidence, merely signs of possibility.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1685997' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:51 AM']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.[/quote]
It would have taken me at least a week to find the article I was specifically siting and get the journal/book reference. Not because I couldn't find it within a week, but because I have other things to do. I'd have to track down psych teachers at my school that discussed the source in class, and that also depends on their availability and office hours.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1686011' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:20 PM']He used his argument to show why he didn't think women should be in combat. Not sure how your love for nail polish figures into that.[/quote]

I was proving a point that not every woman who does not fit into his preferred stereotype is some unnatural tomboy. A woman can be feminine and yet pursue a career over a marriage if she so chooses.

Edited October 25, 2008 by HisChildForever

[Lilllabettt]

I don't think not wanting to be a physical mother means you're messed up in some way. God gives most women that vocation, but not all of them.
Does God give women the vocation to be in physical combat? Maybe a few of them. Joan of Arc comes to mind. But on a general scale, the way a draft is done ... it makes no sense to include women. Violence against women tears at the social/moral fabric of the world in a severe way, for the reasons I stated above. The consequences far outweigh the benefits.

[HisChildForever]

[quote]It isn't really so much because women are becoming more active, more because society is trying to "equalize" men and women, and instead of actually trying to make them equal, they are trying to make them the same.[/quote]

Men and women are equal. We are human beings who deserve to have the same rights.

[quote]No. Women becoming more active, and men becoming more passive are blurring gender roles, and blurred gender roles are A cause of a RISE in homosexual tendencies. Yes there is homosexuality found in scriptures, that's why I specified a RISE in tendencies.[/quote]

I believe it has absolutely nothing to do with women getting out of the housewife stereotype and into the work force. Homosexuality has always been around, even before Christ. I will dig up sources if you like.

[quote]Okay, parents I said was completely no offense meant to your parents, I'm sure 99% of parents don't completely foster this. Mine didn't, and that isn't to rag on my own parents either. My parents weren't raised with a strong understanding either. Maybe your parents were, and if they were then set that aside. Your environment is a DEFINITE because you are part of a 1st world country and that means media. Media means whatever environment you are in... I'm in most of the same thing too. The AMERICAN environment (assuming your american, but even European and Canadian, any Western country really) does not foster this. Your school, unless you were homeschooled, is directly affected by the environment around it and therefore plays a role too. There was no personal attack involved, so to assume I mean you are abnormal is ridiculous. In a sense though, who ISN'T abnormal, we all have original sin, and that is NOT normal, abnormal means AWAY from normal. In the sense that I have a fallen nature, and an unfallen nature is normal, I am abnormal, the question is how is it manifested? In the country of American as a whole, one of these manifestations is through mixed gender roles.[/quote]

Answer these questions straight, please. No dodging. Do you believe that I am wrong for wanting a career over children because I am a woman? Do you believe that the only purpose of a woman is to produce and raise children? In other words, the reason why God made me was for me to have children. And that is all I should expect of my life.

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1686003' date='Oct 25 2008, 11:08 AM']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.[/quote]


Wanting to pursue a career, even in the military (to pull it back to the topic), does not at all affect whether someone is a good woman or man. My girlfriend wants to do social work, good for her, that's awesome. You want to pursue a career, good that's awesome. Women have a lot to offer that men don't (see, there you have gender roles again, women bring something men can't, and men something women can't). A COMBAT situation is an area where men have a lot to offer that women really can't (look at natural upper body strength alone).

As for some of the other comments... my girlfriend wear's jeans and I can probably cook just as good as her, maybe even better. She doesn't dye her hair, rarely does her nails, definitely doesn't wear heels, nor makeup. That isn't what it means to be a woman. It'd be pretty odd to see a medic/nurse in a war type situation (hospital for combat injuries with constant streams of new patients coming in missing limbs, bullet wounds, burns etc) wearing full makeup with nails done and hair permed, yet I support that as a career for women.

Refer to my previous post on homosexuality. I think I clarified where I was coming from and that it wasn't so much as particular environment as a blur between gender roles (which by the way, women in combat would only add to).

Marcus

[HisChildForever]

[quote]My girlfriend wants to do social work, good for her, that's awesome. You want to pursue a career, good that's awesome. Women have a lot to offer that men don't (see, there you have gender roles again, women bring something men can't, and men something women can't).[/quote]

Perhaps society as a whole is at fault for this. It is not right to say that a woman can not do this, and a man can not do that. If we're talking physical stuff, okay, I understand that. But when it gets to the point where an individual looks down on a man for wanting to be a nurse, or a social worker (the stereotypical female jobs), that's where I have a huge problem. Because it's no one's business to say that.

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1686028' date='Oct 25 2008, 11:37 AM']Men and women are equal. We are human beings who deserve to have the same rights.[/quote]
I never said men and women weren't equal. Please read carefully. I said society is trying to "equalize" men and women and instead of equalizing, they are making them the same. Equal is good, same is not. In the attempt to equalize, it has gone away from the pursuit of equality (a good thing), and into the pursuit of sameness.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1686028' date='Oct 25 2008, 11:37 AM']I believe it has absolutely nothing to do with women getting out of the housewife stereotype and into the work force. Homosexuality has always been around, even before Christ. I will dig up sources if you like.[/quote]
Don't really care to see sources. Almost any study on homosexuality will be biased towards the liberal side.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1686028' date='Oct 25 2008, 11:37 AM']Answer these questions straight, please. No dodging. Do you believe that I am wrong for wanting a career over children because I am a woman? Do you believe that the only purpose of a woman is to produce and raise children? In other words, the reason why God made me was for me to have children. And that is all I should expect of my life.[/quote]
No I don't believe you are wrong for wanting a career (should be answered in my previous post, but I'll make it very clear here). I don't believe the only purpose of a woman is to produce and raise children (that COMPLETELY strips the dignity of a woman, not only that but it throws out the idea of women religious as sisters and nuns have a vow of chastity which = no physical kids). God didn't make you to have children, he made you to love, and ONE of the many ways women do that is through children, but I emphasize that it is one of many, not the only. Married women are awesome, so are single women. You should expect a lot more from life then to be a "baby machine" as one might call the way you are phrasing things. Marital love is only one form of love, and it is the only form that involves making babies.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1686031' date='Oct 25 2008, 03:41 PM']Perhaps society as a whole is at fault for this. It is not right to say that a woman can not do this, and a man can not do that. If we're talking physical stuff, okay, I understand that. But when it gets to the point where an individual looks down on a man for wanting to be a nurse, or a social worker (the stereotypical female jobs), that's where I have a huge problem. Because it's no one's business to say that.[/quote]

No one would say that, I hope. I think the point he's trying to make is that women are not suited for combat, not that there are "men professions" and "women professions."

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1686031' date='Oct 25 2008, 11:41 AM']Perhaps society as a whole is at fault for this. It is not right to say that a woman can not do this, and a man can not do that. If we're talking physical stuff, okay, I understand that. But when it gets to the point where an individual looks down on a man for wanting to be a nurse, or a social worker (the stereotypical female jobs), that's where I have a huge problem. Because it's no one's business to say that.[/quote]

Jobs require the physical. Combat requires strength. Social work requires people skills which includes physically being able to smile in rough situations, also being able to have compassion etc.. (not saying men don't and women do). Being a nurse and giving shots requires a steady arm and (i forget the word here, but I'll describe it) fine tuned detailed skills which are also necessary in sewing (some nurses can give stitches too). I wish I remembered the word... its like the fine tuned skills that require precision with very small objects rather then things like lifting boxes or cleaning pots, but the really detailed stuff, hope you know what I mean.

EDIT: Fine motor skills is the word I was looking for. Or the words

I think there are [b]some[/b] gender specific careers, and I think there are [b]mostly[/b] gender neutral careers. This is my opinion, no sources, no studies. I think it can be backed by principles of father hood and mother hood. It is gender specific for women to be able to get pregnant. It is gender specific for men to have greater natural upper body strength which is necessary for a lot of jobs.

Marcus

Edited for clarity.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Slappo

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1686023' date='Oct 25 2008, 03:28 PM']I was proving a point that not every woman who does not fit into his preferred stereotype is some unnatural tomboy. A woman can be feminine and yet pursue a career over a marriage if she so chooses.[/quote]

Maybe it's just me but I think pursuing a career and going into combat are generally two different things. Up until recently women were not allowed in combat situations. Currently, out of all the jobs the Army offers, women are only allowed to be in 2 jobs that are considered a combat MOS (engineering and field artillery). Most women don't directly choose a path that's more likely to get them blown up. Careers, sure. Combat? Not usually.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1686042' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:57 PM']Maybe it's just me but I think pursuing a career and going into combat are generally two different things. Up until recently women were not allowed in combat situations. Currently, out of all the jobs the Army offers, women are only allowed to be in 2 jobs that are considered a combat MOS (engineering and field artillery). Most women don't directly choose a path that's more likely to get them blown up. Careers, sure. Combat? Not usually.[/quote]

And the question is (not specifically directed at you, but the other posters here as well), is this because of our biology, or because of society, or because of both?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1686035' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:46 PM']No one would say that, I hope. I think the point he's trying to make is that women are not suited for combat, not that there are "men professions" and "women professions."[/quote]

And that's fine, to say women are not [b]physically[/b] suited for combat. (And even in this instance I would say some women are suited for combat, if they train and build the muscle - they could "beat up" the average Joe walking down the block. Granted, "combat women" and "combat men" can not be compared, because men are physically stronger, but a "combat women" is stronger than your average male, given the circumstances.)

But when you start saying that women serve as a distraction in combat situations, it's like - well we might as well have same-sex [i]everything[/i] (schools, libraries) if women are such a distraction for men. (And as if men don't serve as distractions for women?)

Quick edit -

I also want to point out, as I did earlier, that when men and women are in combat situations, they are trained to fight, survive, and accomplish their mission(s). If they are even considering flirtations and relationships, then [b]neither[/b] member of [b]neither[/b] sex should be in such a serious role. Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to say that men would have the urge to protect the women and thus everyone is in danger (someone mentioned this earlier, I forget the poster) because then we can say that, within a group of twenty men, if four of those men are extremely close friends, couldn't they jeopardize the mission by putting their relationships before the group?

Edited October 25, 2008 by HisChildForever

[CatherineM]

Since no one seemed to be able to come up with stats showing how women, especially younger ones are increasing in violent activity, I thought perhaps an [url="http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/97crime/97crime5.pdf"]FBI Report[/url] would suffice. From 1967 to 1996 the rate of female violent crime increased 345%. Probably even more so in the last 10 years. Here is a [url="http://www.wvdoc.com/wvdoc/Portals/0/documents/female.pdf"]Report[/url] out of one state on the increase in their female inmate population.

As to being a tomboy, I don't think any female, perhaps short of Joan of Arc, was more of a tomboy that I was, and probably still am. Was in two very male dominated fields, but where have I found my true vocation? As a housewife who spends her free time sewing.