Should we allow women to join the military?

Posted by: Cat47

Vote
54 Total Votes
1

Yes

45 votes
8 comments
2

No

9 votes
3 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
CosmoJarvis says2017-01-19T22:00:06.7576551Z
Why can't women be on the front lines?
RonPaulConservative says2017-01-19T22:57:12.7496389Z
Women are MEAN, mean mean mean- they're like vicious and blood thirsty, so they're actually perfect for military service.
reece says2017-01-19T23:45:57.8744389Z
Why can't women be on the front lines? I don't see why not if they meet all the requirements.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-20T04:31:51.5464998Z
@aidasss In 1000 yrs everyone will certainly agree that we are, in fact, retards.
CosmoJarvis says2017-01-20T04:34:05.9910255Z
@RonPaulConservative Now, I'm not saying that I agree with that statement... But I'm not saying I disagree with you on that point...
Starfleet says2017-01-20T06:29:21.0460998Z
"Unstobbaple", please stop spewing your disgusting and sexist language. Do you even know what a zygote is? Can you provide proof that pregnant women or just women in general in the military, lead to a higher sexual assault rate, or that the military intentionally covers up when an assault happens? "You can't have a numbered list without three things or they'd be like, why did you bother to number 2 items? "; what does that even mean? Mothers have died for countless millennium, and there are about 7 billion people, with a projected "World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. The current world population of 7.3 billion is expected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to a new UN DESA report, “World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision”, launched today."(www.Un.Org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.Html, Jul 29, 2015). Now, I'm not saying that I don't value the lives of women, of course I do, they're Humans, who deserve to live and have sovereignty over their lives, but to say that the reason why women should not be allowed in the military because of their physiology is completely sexist, and medically untrue. Please do your homework first before saying anything in public.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-20T06:31:05.2540998Z
Sarcasm?
Unstobbaple says2017-01-20T06:32:12.6342255Z
Also, have you ever poed before?
Unstobbaple says2017-01-20T06:33:51.3940998Z
I'm gonna stamp a yes on that. Excellent.
Starfleet says2017-01-20T06:35:26.0274255Z
Have I ever "poed"? What is that? Did you mean, "pooed", like defecated? If you used sarcasm, then your sentence structure and the flow of your argument, didn't convey that very well.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-20T07:26:12.8752998Z
Sooo, no? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe
Unstobbaple says2017-01-20T07:28:41.4808998Z
I do 1 on 1 charity internet noob consults by private message for desperate cases only.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-20T07:28:50.0490255Z
I do 1 on 1 charity internet noob consults by private message for desperate cases only.
cyber_onions says2017-01-20T08:04:54.7674255Z
@Unstobbaple your original comment was ridiculous, but I couldn't tell whether it was sarcasm or not because there are loads of comments on this site that are equally ridiculous, and the posters defend them...Poed indeed!
Starfleet says2017-01-21T02:41:52.7680360Z
"Unstoppable", you may need to seek mental health assistance.
John_C_1812 says2017-01-21T04:26:39.9580360Z
Why can’t woman be on the front lines? I don’t see why not if they meet all the requirements. A woman can be on the front line regardless of requirements. So can men as far as that goes. The First requirement is to defend the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. This process of Unity is by the understanding of basic principles and legal precedent of a separation process. There is a basic code of conduct. How could a woman insure that all men she faced in battle are in fact will to end her life? There has never been a written understanding given other than a woman that is willing to kill should be instantly regarded as target to spite honor. In a proper United States Constitutional trial a separation process takes place through representation which places the burden of death directly on the woman who ends the life. In a Constitutional Capital Punishment the means of separation from life does the same.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-21T04:39:08.8984360Z
You lost me at the end John C, not sure what you're driving at but I do agree that woman can and should be held to the same standards at the outset of a change in this direction. With the normal motivating hormones being different I think woman in combat would help to add additional requirements to the current standards. By that I mean that I agree that woman are generally different from men and have a different set of skills and deficiencies with respect to combat. I think this would help to reform training programs both to emphasize feminine strength and deficiency with respect to combat. I think Ideally there would at least be a few paths to combat readiness training. I'll go ahead and state that you obviously need to consider Rogue, mage, priest and warrior talents when creating any new combat group. This should apply whether you are a s/he vulcan, time lord or Uruk-hai etc.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-21T04:39:33.6400360Z
You lost me at the end John C, not sure what you're driving at but I do agree that woman can and should be held to the same standards at the outset of a change in this direction. With the normal motivating hormones being different I think woman in combat would help to add additional requirements to the current standards. By that I mean that I agree that woman are generally different from men and have a different set of skills and deficiencies with respect to combat. I think this would help to reform training programs both to emphasize feminine strength and deficiency with respect to combat. I think Ideally there would at least be a few paths to combat readiness training. I'll go ahead and state that you obviously need to consider Rogue, mage, priest and warrior talents when creating any new combat group. This should apply whether you are a s/he vulcan, time lord or Uruk-hai etc.
John_C_1812 says2017-01-21T15:46:35.9106047Z
Because a person, because a woman asked a fare question. Does not mean the reason will be easy to understand. Should we allow woman to be in the Military. No! You are asking for relief from a burden that was not mine to carry, or give relief. No - it is not our choice as men to allow a woman into the Military. The reason behind a woman not being allowed in the Military is a Constitutional argument based on legal separation. I as a man, (a legal separation), as Republican (a legal separation), by oath to Republic (a legal separation), under United States Constitution (a legal separation). Do not possess the authority to separate a woman in matters of life, liberty, and death (a possible illegal separation), unless a described attack against the United States Constitution has taken place (Justification to legal separation) has taken place. There is already a legal precedent set for Military, therefore. A new precedent should have been enacted by President, Executive office, Congress, or Prasedera - a woman who might sit to represent all woman before the United States Constitution.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-21T16:24:42.3446965Z
So are you saying your waiting for the bill of rights 2 to come out in 3D? I here it's going to be awesome!
Unstobbaple says2017-01-21T17:08:42.4745880Z
@Starfleet my therapist keeps telling me that.
John_C_1812 says2017-01-22T05:05:24.8067430Z
No waiting here. Damage done. Woman are in a Congressional Armed Force. It is already known that is it was an act of Congress which declared the United Militia inside the United States, though not first in the world. The debate could be moved to woman in a Presidential Armed Force. However that is not representing the United States Constitution. So the woman would be in an Executive Office Armed Force. I cannot legally make a legitimate argument in justifying why there is a need to mutilate a woman in combat. There is more honor in evading (running) to face a different enemy. Therapy is nice. In the focus of this poll however the progression is to explaining why a man of honor defending the United States Constitution is simply incapable of placing a woman into the Military that has Precedent. While a much needed tactical effort should be addressed of having Sealed Congressional Hearings on actions taken in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the job of President is to sit before the United States Constitution on their behalf. So that they be cleared by a documented service with the honor and liberty of an impartial separation process. It is kind of semantic, but prudent, as it should have been done for preservation to United States Constitution at the end of engagements in the Korean/Vietnam War. Hearing held where directed at MacArthur not soldiers in relationship to basic principle and legal precedent in the regions the Armed Forces actively served. Actively served is scrutinizing there was a call to be made by a President of the United State, on behalf of. Like I said Complicated.
Starfleet says2017-01-22T05:34:05.9070673Z
John_C_1812, what in the world are you trying to say? I really tried to understand your argument, but the only thing I was able to get out of it is that in order to put women in dangerous combat situations, it should be authorized by the U.S. Congress. You claim that "the progression is to explaining why a man of honor defending the United States Constitution is simply incapable of placing a woman into the Military that has Precedent." Are you trying to say that no man of honor would put a woman in danger? If that is what you're saying, then your thinking is way behind the times; it's outright sexist and ignorant.
Starfleet says2017-01-22T05:49:03.2346673Z
"With the normal motivating hormones being different I think woman in combat would help to add additional requirements to the current standards. By that I mean that I agree that woman are generally different from men and have a different set of skills and deficiencies with respect to combat. I think this would help to reform training programs both to emphasize feminine strength and deficiency with respect to combat." Unstobbaple , are you saying that the physiology of a female inherently prevent them from doing certain things that come naturally to males?. Doesn't it depend on what food and lifestyle that a person leads, that is the main determining factor in what the body can do?. I mean, I've met women who are far stronger, and have bigger balls than I do, so, in my personal experience, it depends on the person.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-22T06:00:08.0295430Z
I guess I just think 'men of honor' are douches then if that's included in your definition. Coddling someone in a state of emasculated dependency sounds like it leads to limp dull relationships. I'd rather cultivate a partnership and that is not a suggestion that strongly feminine matriarchs are weak, I'm suggesting they're clearly strong enough to fight in a war. I'm guessing you've never met anyone like tattoo face here: https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/westworld-ingrid-bolso-berdal-snake-tattoo-armistice and that's sad. I've met several.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-22T06:04:27.0207430Z
@Starfleet to flip your statement, I'm saying that the physiology of men make it more difficult to accomplish tasks that come more naturally to women in combat. Obviously there are some men with a strong does of estrogen that could accomplish the same tasks more efficiently than the average woman but normally men and women are different, yes. Flip that SJW switch off and things are clearer ;)
John_C_1812 says2017-01-22T06:09:32.9991430Z
I am saying a man of Honor will with no doubt say. Under no condition will they put a woman in a combat situation. Asking of another man who holds honor that they must die brutalizing a woman in combat. It is cruel and unusual punishment. I am saying a man of Honor may not legally know why a woman might be excluded from combat by Constitutional Representation. I am saying a man of Honor has very limited focus and great self-discipline. I am saying there has been no relief given by chain of command from the burden of United States Constitutional responsibility. Congress has asking a Soldier of honor to commit treason. Unless it had granted the act of liberty in the form of relief of that burden. The same would apply to the Executive Office. The United Sates Military is not a democracy it is a legal part of the Republic and is Federal Property. Property holding legal precedent in Constitutional Separation, not a freedom which shows loss of self-value. All of the excluding the fact that a woman has civil legal actions taking place inside the United States Against the United States Constitution to which as a group they are openly confessing and claiming a right to participate felony crime.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-22T06:19:44.7366673Z
I got that. I can define douche if you'd like: someone who thinks there is honor in condescending handicaps and baseless rationalizations for culturally ingrained gender role blindness. I have the the basic freedom to commit all kinds of felonies. I'm guessing treason is a felony but the minute men (10 min minimum for me) did not bother to care. The list of felonies is now so long I'm guessing I've committed a few. I've made unscented candles b4 which was just made a felony by executive order retroactively.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-22T06:19:50.6499430Z
I got that. I can define douche if you'd like: someone who thinks there is honor in condescending handicaps and baseless rationalizations for culturally ingrained gender role blindness. I have the the basic freedom to commit all kinds of felonies. I'm guessing treason is a felony but the minute men (10 min minimum for me) did not bother to care. The list of felonies is now so long I'm guessing I've committed a few. I've made unscented candles b4 which was just made a felony by executive order retroactively.
Starfleet says2017-01-22T06:24:22.2450673Z
I never said that men are douchebags. If I did, please copy and paste it in your response to this post, and please explain in as much detail as possible, why the part of my argument you chose, sends the message that men are douchebags. ". How would giving women the same opportunities and training that men go through, be "Coddling someone in a state of emasculated dependency sounds like it leads to limp dull relationships"? Why would males be "coddled"?. Please explain this to me.
John_C_1812 says2017-01-22T06:38:47.2191430Z
Are you describing anyone I know or just me? I do not understand how any-one can expect to defend something in foreign land, if you can start at home. Not that it matters because we both know honor does not always matter to both sides of any argument. Of any War. An act of Treason like all crimes may be cleared by Judicial separation or maybe even military Tribunal. The Constitutional Understanding shared here is the liberty in held in choices not always direct confrontations. Executive Armed Force, Congressional Armed Force, and Prasedera Armed Force.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-22T06:39:42.4110673Z
@Starprojectiondisorder I was talking to John C. I called 'men' of honor' douches myself. Read the other comments! I suggested his worldview likely leads to a coddled sub serviant wife. I hope I've explained why the world is not you. There is literally just one other person I'm having a conversation with but you're directing every comment I make at a perceived deficiency in yourself. If you don't have someone to hug you for 10 minutes repeating, 'you're awesome,' I will personally work to make that happen.
Unstobbaple says2017-01-22T07:01:50.5335430Z
Well, I've got you off your script anyway. I defined a word you likely perceive as an insult as a problem I see quite clearly in your ideology. You've clearly adopted the western ingrained idea that rules = good which seems to be your definition of honor. For me good = my best understanding of the roles and actions I should adopt to improve the world in which I live which is a completely action completely dependent on my own self interest. I judge everyone constantly with the goal of understanding why I could think exactly like them. Props on not being easily provoked to ad hominems.
John_C_1812 says2017-01-22T16:09:20.6122196Z
Funny thing about following rules. When you use them sometimes others find out how foolish it was not to use them. Once they start following them, they may see the cause of events in their life in a different way. Not because they are any smarter, wires, or better of a person for the experience. They are just standing in a different place with different things to see. The evidence points to Congressional Armed Force, Executive Armed Force as well. Possibly a someday a Prasedera Armed Force. What they are not is a Military Armed Force. Constitutional Separation is describe by the basic principle of two side must be found to have scale.
Starfleet says2017-01-24T02:26:12.8809720Z
The point I've tried to make by posting on here the times that I have, is that if a female can endure the physical and mental demands of being on the front lines like their males counterparts have done for many years, then I don't see why any current military programs should be tailored to meet any perceived differences between the genders. Like I've said before, what a person can physically do and mentally endure, depends a lot on what kind of life they've lived before joining the military. Relying on any prejudices that we may hold regarding the two genders of humanity, we need to get past them, and do research on what medical science has been able to determine in controlled observations on the capabilities of both the female and male body.
John_C_1812 says2017-01-24T14:11:35.3734005Z
Starfleet, Your basic point is that medical science should be allowed to dictate law because of its great work in the field of fixed equations? It isn’t conceivable that the fixed equations may just work in a limited place in society. Like human health care? So for the sake of argument let’s pretend that the Military is a word that describes a Medical definition, a process that “saved lives.” In the past. Before. It doesn’t work anymore. The fixed equation held the Constitutional order outside democracy. Using the Medical principle. There is a brand new way to save lives and it is Called Congressional Armed Force, Executive Armed Force, and Prasedera Armed Force. This is now a legally established word called Military. As one woman, has come forward, and represents all woman through an act of governing in the matters of possible murder charge, as they may relate to code of Conduct in a “Well-regulated militia.” Does such woman exist? If not why not? Is the United States Constitution to blame? This, the presentation of a Prasedera is the Basic principle establishing the Well-Regulated order in the Congressional and Executive militia. Which through the fixed equation now assumed command of Preserving, protecting and defending the very thing it simple chose not to represent or allow to be consider? OK far enough, I agree medical Science should report findings on this fact. Is this explained in a way that is understood?
Starfleet says2017-01-24T20:54:28.0986990Z
John_C_1812, I have no clue as to what you're talking about. The point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't rely on preconceived notions on what a female can do versus what a male can do. Instead we should focus on observations, both in controlled environments and in the field, to determine what each gender is able to do, so an accurate assessment can be made regarding what job they are able to do.
John_C_1812 says2017-01-25T19:14:59.3514285Z
Starfleet, There is not a preconceived notion of what a female can do. It is fact based on only what has not been done. Preserve, Protect, and Defined the United States constitution by providing a common defense to the general welfare. The whole notion of inequality is based off of an accusation of an object without the ability to defend itself. Military is a describe wording which is detailing a representation given to the United States Constitution. By one man, a President who speaks on behalf of all Soldiers, simply generalized by the definition in Latin as men, in regard to the War of Independence. As some people who had served in battle had place in English aristocratic society and may have been punished for a crime. The Constitutional Order of Law described a woman as being a Congressional Armed Force. Now woman are part of a Presidential Armed Force. This is witnessed Constitutional separation. It is illegal for a woman to be in the Military as it is skipping a process that is noted to insure the common defense to the general welfare. (It gets people hurt that did not need to suffer) The simplest way it can be described, woman are fighting for the right to kill abandoning their protection of defend given by the United Sates Constitution.
Starfleet says2017-01-26T20:23:57.5144556Z
John_C_1812 , your posts make no sense whatsoever.
John_C_1812 says2017-01-27T14:37:05.1391918Z
Starfleet, Of course it makes sense. It is complicated, true. Sorry, I am trying to explain as detailed as possible. To establish a separation from public accusation holding no form of impartial equal protection. It was a detailed way of saying a woman always could have preserved, protected, and defended the United States Constitution without the help of a male, by providing their own basic separation. Can you say and write the words Congressional Armed Force and Executive Armed Force these are the first steps. A woman has basically shown she can read and write, the military force is a challenge to create separation as a basic right to test reason. The United States Military is a form of Constitutional Separation. Woman are simply asking for the right to train and kill to protect the United States Constitution, without demonstrating an ability to use basic principle of reason first, like those held in the order of impartial separation. By United States Constitution. Military is a “State” Created by impartial judicial Separation with equal representation. It is a religious test just not involving political office, making it constitutionally legal. In this test a woman must understand the method and not the answer that the method created. Military. It is a fixed equation like you find in algebra. It is a formation of self-regulate truth.
Starfleet says2017-02-09T21:32:56.7730143Z
Your comment is one of the most ignorant and sexism comments I have had the misfortune of coming across. Before you make another comment like that one you made, please do your research so you don't end up looking like a fool again.
John_C_1812 says2017-02-10T00:36:35.9845088Z
Our shared goal here is the preservation, protection and defense of the United States Constitution. I am not the first to be left standing like a fool before the United States Constitution. I will not be the last. I apologize as basic principle can easily be mistaken for ignorance, and I am more than will to listen to any informative and open common defense offered. The basic point of the matter is the precedent set is that a woman be elected by all woman to act on their behalf. My personal opinion does not really matter. If you are uncomfortable with the canter I will stop talking and leave you with best wishes and good bye. Your choice?
Anitabab01 says2018-07-03T13:29:18.0386370Z
Hello greetings to you (anitagaranglu5@gmail.Com) It is nice and joyful to find your profile .I thought is beautiful to make you a friend in this regard. My name is Anita , i will like you to contact me direct to my box for easy communication, because i am not often here in this site. Anita

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.