Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should woman...

TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 3:55:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
be allowed to fight on the front lines in a war zone? I am generally curious what people think about this, why or why not. I personally believe that they should have the right to join the infantry, and put bullets down range. But I would also like to hear other peoples opinions on this. Discuss with me please :)
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 4:09:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No. They should get back in the mess hall.

Of course they should be allowed to fight.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 6:36:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes. Generally people say they're not physically able, but that's a poor argument. The average women may be less physically fit than a man but that just means less women will make it into the military than men. Only women who pass the physical test will make it so I see no problem. Plus women have some mental traits that men often do not have which are good.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
RationalMadman
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:21:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 3:55:22 PM, TUF wrote:
be allowed to fight on the front lines in a war zone? I am generally curious what people think about this, why or why not. I personally believe that they should have the right to join the infantry, and put bullets down range. But I would also like to hear other peoples opinions on this. Discuss with me please :)

Honestly I think no. Women are beautiful and submissive compared to men, they are not built to fight us that brutally.
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

We didn't fight our way to the top of the food chain to be f***ng vegetarians.
RationalMadman
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:21:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 3:55:22 PM, TUF wrote:
be allowed to fight on the front lines in a war zone? I am generally curious what people think about this, why or why not. I personally believe that they should have the right to join the infantry, and put bullets down range. But I would also like to hear other peoples opinions on this. Discuss with me please :)

Also in terms of reproductive roles, a loss of a woman is a huger loss than the loss of a man.
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

We didn't fight our way to the top of the food chain to be f***ng vegetarians.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:34:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:21:46 PM, RationalMadman wrote:
At 12/22/2012 3:55:22 PM, TUF wrote:
be allowed to fight on the front lines in a war zone? I am generally curious what people think about this, why or why not. I personally believe that they should have the right to join the infantry, and put bullets down range. But I would also like to hear other peoples opinions on this. Discuss with me please :)

Also in terms of reproductive roles, a loss of a woman is a huger loss than the loss of a man.

Because reproducing equals the ultimate goal of mankind.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:36:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:21:24 PM, RationalMadman wrote:
At 12/22/2012 3:55:22 PM, TUF wrote:
be allowed to fight on the front lines in a war zone? I am generally curious what people think about this, why or why not. I personally believe that they should have the right to join the infantry, and put bullets down range. But I would also like to hear other peoples opinions on this. Discuss with me please :)

Honestly I think no. Women are beautiful and submissive compared to men, they are not built to fight us that brutally.

See my post. Most women couldn't make it into the military, but there are tests that you are required to pass to be able to join. So if a women is unfit, guess what? She'll be turned down. If she does pass the requirements, why not let her join?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 3:37:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Women should have the right to choose to serve in the armed forces, just as men do. They are perfectly capable of combatting with firearms.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 9:44:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 3:55:22 PM, TUF wrote:
be allowed to fight on the front lines in a war zone? I am generally curious what people think about this, why or why not. I personally believe that they should have the right to join the infantry, and put bullets down range. But I would also like to hear other peoples opinions on this. Discuss with me please :)

I think it is definitely a lot tougher but If they can dish it out why not. There are some rolls I'm the military women can't do tho. I thought that was interesting to hear when I found out.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 12:51:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:46:50 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
Not all women are submissive.

what could they not perform equally, or better in the military as men?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 12:54:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:21:46 PM, RationalMadman wrote:
At 12/22/2012 3:55:22 PM, TUF wrote:
be allowed to fight on the front lines in a war zone? I am generally curious what people think about this, why or why not. I personally believe that they should have the right to join the infantry, and put bullets down range. But I would also like to hear other peoples opinions on this. Discuss with me please :)

Also in terms of reproductive roles, a loss of a woman is a huger loss than the loss of a man.

That's kind of a broad argument though. How many woman would be willing to fight along the 1% of current armed forces? The population for females in the U.S. Is a lot bigger than the male percentage. I think all things considered, I could see very little of a drop in the reproductive cycle. But my question is, even if there was, is it such a big deal? Population increase if anything is a negative. Again we would still be factoring in very small percentages.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 1:14:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 6:36:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Yes. Generally people say they're not physically able, but that's a poor argument. The average women may be less physically fit than a man but that just means less women will make it into the military than men. Only women who pass the physical test will make it so I see no problem

Note that historically this argument has not been true of the rest of the military. All branches of the US military have lesser fitness standards for females than males.

If I believed the US government were capable of behaving differently I'd see no reason not to alter the rule. But it's hard to believe the US government is capable of behaving differently/
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 1:17:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, note that in modern war everyone could get into a firefight. The "front lines" just mean you're constantly lugging around hundreds of pounds while looking to get into one.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 1:25:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:46:50 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
Not all women are submissive.

I would make you all my b!tch.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 1:28:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah they should, and conscription should be gender-neutral. If we're going to deconstruct the predetermined role-based society of the past, then that includes the assumptions about BOTH genders, not just women.

heck, conscription shouldn't even be legal.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 1:33:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 1:25:34 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:46:50 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
Not all women are submissive.

I would make you all my b!tch.

Bitch isn't censored.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 1:34:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 1:14:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/22/2012 6:36:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Yes. Generally people say they're not physically able, but that's a poor argument. The average women may be less physically fit than a man but that just means less women will make it into the military than men. Only women who pass the physical test will make it so I see no problem

Note that historically this argument has not been true of the rest of the military. All branches of the US military have lesser fitness standards for females than males.

I'm not very familiar with male/female physical setup or military fitness standards, but I would imagine that perhaps because women are built differently to men, their physical tests should be different. For example, men generally weigh more than women and I'd imagine weight factors in to what you have to achieve on the test. But lighter men have still have always been able to join even if they can't do as much as more heavy men. I'd also think women would generally have different roles in the military than men. For example, in world war II the larger men were often assigned to carry the heavy machine guns. Women would never be expected to have roles like that, but I'm sure there's plenty of places they would fit just as well as a man.

If I believed the US government were capable of behaving differently I'd see no reason not to alter the rule. But it's hard to believe the US government is capable of behaving differently/
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 1:37:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 1:33:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:25:34 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:46:50 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
Not all women are submissive.

I would make you all my b!tch.

Bitch isn't censored.

That's cuz I made DDO my bitch.
President of DDO
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 1:45:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 1:37:55 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:33:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:25:34 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:46:50 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
Not all women are submissive.

I would make you all my b!tch.

Bitch isn't censored.

That's cuz I made DDO my bitch.

All hail Danielle. She is perfect. She is holy. She is the maker and the ultimate end. Amen.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:22:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, I honestly don't think so. And here's why:

While of course the physical duress of a combat environment is something to take into account, as plenty of people already pointed out there are women capable of dealing with it just as much as men can. The only problem with this, though, is that the standards for acceptance of women into the Armed Forces is much lower than men's standards (I know it's at least two pull ups required for a man to join the marines, and I think for a women to join the marines they just have to hang on the bar for a bit, or maybe just do one. The push up and sit up requirement in one minute is also different, with a lot more demanding standard set upon the male gender). While this difference appears sound on the surface, it faces one massive problem when we actually hit a combat environment in that our enemies will all fight at one level: hard. They won't fight less hard if they're facing women. By lowering the standards of physical acceptance, we're lowering their survivability on the battlefield.

Of course this could just be solved back for by making a uniform standard for acceptance across both genders, so what other reason is there?

The other reason has to deal with the psyche of men and women. Men are generally (I am saying generally for a reason, so don't you dare come at me with the "WOMEN CAN DO THIS TOO DERP" argument, as I'm talking on a general level, not a case-specific level) viewed as the protectors of others, and women as the protectees. This has been something engrained into the male psyche by our ancestors and by modern society: you never see some chick clad in armor riding a horse to save some guy locked up in a tower guarded by a dragon. It's always the knight in shining armor riding to save the damsel in distress. While of course this could be described as movie surrealism, it's actually an accurate representation of the male psyche, as they feel more protective around women than they do men.

So if we get into a live fire situation, and a girl is out there and gets wounded, the very fact that men are psychologically protective of women could sway them to act in such a way that not only places themselves at risk of injury or death, but places the rest of their squad at risk of injury or death. The situation isn't always inherently true for just this example, as someone might do the same stupid stuff to save a girl as they would a close male friend of theirs, but it's more commonly found and expected if women were integrated into the infantry and fighting force. This could lead to a rise in casualties and failed missions.

So yeh, I don't think that women should be allowed to go out there and fight. Because it would cause us males to fvck things up.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:47:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Women are just as good, in principle, at murdering brown people. What's the problem?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:54:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 3:59:42 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
Can't think of any reason why not.

1) RatMan is clearly trolling. Please don't feed the trolls.

2) Regarding this particular post, one reason I can think of is the ostensible need for separate living facilities, and whether or not the lack thereof would prove to be a readiness issue. If not, then I can't either.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:54:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 2:47:03 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Women are just as good, in principle, at murdering brown people. What's the problem?

The only relevant argument I can think of is that women tend to be less inclined to favor aggressive murder than men. They tend to be more emphatic, which is the opposite of how the government wants soldiers to be. Of course, regarding their physical and mental well-being, women should be able to make the choice for themselves after assessing their own realistic durability and risks.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:01:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 2:22:10 PM, Zaradi wrote:
No, I honestly don't think so. And here's why:

While of course the physical duress of a combat environment is something to take into account, as plenty of people already pointed out there are women capable of dealing with it just as much as men can. The only problem with this, though, is that the standards for acceptance of women into the Armed Forces is much lower than men's standards (I know it's at least two pull ups required for a man to join the marines, and I think for a women to join the marines they just have to hang on the bar for a bit, or maybe just do one. The push up and sit up requirement in one minute is also different, with a lot more demanding standard set upon the male gender). While this difference appears sound on the surface, it faces one massive problem when we actually hit a combat environment in that our enemies will all fight at one level: hard. They won't fight less hard if they're facing women. By lowering the standards of physical acceptance, we're lowering their survivability on the battlefield.

Of course this could just be solved back for by making a uniform standard for acceptance across both genders, so what other reason is there?

The other reason has to deal with the psyche of men and women. Men are generally (I am saying generally for a reason, so don't you dare come at me with the "WOMEN CAN DO THIS TOO DERP" argument, as I'm talking on a general level, not a case-specific level) viewed as the protectors of others, and women as the protectees. This has been something engrained into the male psyche by our ancestors and by modern society: you never see some chick clad in armor riding a horse to save some guy locked up in a tower guarded by a dragon. It's always the knight in shining armor riding to save the damsel in distress. While of course this could be described as movie surrealism, it's actually an accurate representation of the male psyche, as they feel more protective around women than they do men.

So if we get into a live fire situation, and a girl is out there and gets wounded, the very fact that men are psychologically protective of women could sway them to act in such a way that not only places themselves at risk of injury or death, but places the rest of their squad at risk of injury or death. The situation isn't always inherently true for just this example, as someone might do the same stupid stuff to save a girl as they would a close male friend of theirs, but it's more commonly found and expected if women were integrated into the infantry and fighting force. This could lead to a rise in casualties and failed missions.

So yeh, I don't think that women should be allowed to go out there and fight. Because it would cause us males to fvck things up.

You cannot be serious....Somewhere in whatever you use to reason, there must be something telling you how weak this argument is. I think you already decided that you would not be comfortable with women fighting in war, and these are just post hoc justifications.

You start off, zaradi, by introducing a weak argument,....and then you refute your own argument. So, I suppose that whole paragraphs exists just for the sake of length, girth, and presentation. You then move on to argue that women should not be allowed in the military, because you've predicted that men would treat them in a special manner that harms the operation --- absolute conjecture. And even if we grant that, this special-protection mentality could arise and could become a problem (which it probably couldn't), you make absolutely no consideration to the benefits of gender-based military expansion and equality.

If you're going to decide that 50% of humanity shouldn't be allowed to do something, you better come up with something just a little bit better than "but, but te men wil tnink they r week!1".
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:02:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 1:34:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:14:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/22/2012 6:36:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Yes. Generally people say they're not physically able, but that's a poor argument. The average women may be less physically fit than a man but that just means less women will make it into the military than men. Only women who pass the physical test will make it so I see no problem

Agree.

Note that historically this argument has not been true of the rest of the military. All branches of the US military have lesser fitness standards for females than males.

I believe in certain military occupations, there is a gender-neutral objective physical standard. I may be wrong on this, not entirely certain.

I'm not very familiar with male/female physical setup or military fitness standards, but I would imagine that perhaps because women are built differently to men, their physical tests should be different. For example, men generally weigh more than women and I'd imagine weight factors in to what you have to achieve on the test. But lighter men have still have always been able to join even if they can't do as much as more heavy men. I'd also think women would generally have different roles in the military than men. For example, in world war II the larger men were often assigned to carry the heavy machine guns. Women would never be expected to have roles like that, but I'm sure there's plenty of places they would fit just as well as a man.

1) Yes, they are different, at least in the US. Physical standards for women tend to be much lower than they are for men.

2) The main question seems to deal with combat specifically. Women already have "roles like that," i.e. support roles in the military. Whether or not they should be allowed in actual combat without restriction seems to be the point of contention.

I agree if they are able to haul 50-100 lb loads on their backs like any man, there should be very few tangible issues with allowing women to fight in the front lines.

3) This would also clear the path for women to be eligible for the Selective Service. This is the logical endgame for "pure" gender equality...i.e. be careful what you wish for.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:06:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 1:45:42 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:37:55 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:33:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:25:34 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:46:50 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
Not all women are submissive.

I would make you all my b!tch.

Bitch isn't censored.

That's cuz I made DDO my bitch.

All hail Danielle. She is perfect. She is holy. She is the maker and the ultimate end. Amen.

The Fool: A have to say, a pretty and educated woman, is pretty close.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:18:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 2:22:10 PM, Zaradi wrote:
No, I honestly don't think so. And here's why:

By lowering the standards of physical acceptance, we're lowering their survivability on the battlefield.

Lots of truth here.

Of course this could just be solved back for by making a uniform standard for acceptance across both genders, so what other reason is there?

True.

The other reason has to deal with the psyche of men and women. Men are generally (I am saying generally for a reason, so don't you dare come at me with the "WOMEN CAN DO THIS TOO DERP" argument, as I'm talking on a general level, not a case-specific level) viewed as the protectors of others, and women as the protectees. This has been something engrained into the male psyche by our ancestors and by modern society: you never see some chick clad in armor riding a horse to save some guy locked up in a tower guarded by a dragon. It's always the knight in shining armor riding to save the damsel in distress. While of course this could be described as movie surrealism, it's actually an accurate representation of the male psyche, as they feel more protective around women than they do men.

So if we get into a live fire situation, and a girl is out there and gets wounded, the very fact that men are psychologically protective of women could sway them to act in such a way that not only places themselves at risk of injury or death, but places the rest of their squad at risk of injury or death. The situation isn't always inherently true for just this example, as someone might do the same stupid stuff to save a girl as they would a close male friend of theirs, but it's more commonly found and expected if women were integrated into the infantry and fighting force. This could lead to a rise in casualties and failed missions.

So yeh, I don't think that women should be allowed to go out there and fight. Because it would cause us males to fvck things up.

Hmm. This becomes really tricky. We could have applied the same argument to slavery, but we didn't. Yes, it took well over 100 years and the bloodiest war in American history to change, but in the end we changed, and we indeed do have a black President.

I think it is possible for males to change their behavior. It may take a while, and perhaps we are not ready yet.

The real questions in my mind is whether or not we should be going down this path to begin with. For example, if what I said about a blanket Selective Service does indeed occur, who would take care of children? Would married couples fight in the same unit? All of a sudden we have to take all kinds of crazy sh!t into consideration.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?