Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Most definitely. Women are people too.

At 12/11/12 07:55 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 12/11/12 07:49 PM, NuclearWarfare wrote: Most definitely. Women are people too.

Which has nothing to do with serving in combat roles..

If they can pass boot camp, shouldn't they should be allowed to serve in combat?

You put a woman who's lost her children to the enemy on the field, and give her the means to punish the enemy.

That is how wars are won. Through appalling savagery.

At 12/11/12 01:40 PM, CheezNapkin wrote:

At 12/9/12 03:28 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Women should be home making babies ...perferably more manchild !

home making us food ....HEY Bitch ...where's my sammich ?

hahahaha

;;;
On giving the matter more thought ....snuggling up to a female soldier in a hole on some remote battlefield would be a lot more fun IMO than say stuck in the same hole as you or any other guy !

There shouldn't be a problem they should fit requirements like everyone else.

At 12/13/12 10:00 AM, Ceratisa wrote: No one reads..

You included.

After reading this thread I think there is something to be taken away from both sides.

We shouldn't outright ban women from the military, that would be stupid, BUT in not doing so we have to recognize the stark differences between male and females and treat them both equally whether they like it or not. They also have to understand that once they're out in the field, they're no longer men or women, they're soldiers, and will be treated like such.

Comparing civilians to soldiers regardless of gender is stupid, and if a women is an overall better soldier than the man standing next to her, I'm going to pick the women simply out of common sense.
There are women out there who make better soldiers than some men, whether they constitute a majority or minority is irrelevant.

I don't wanna read the whole thread but has anyone brought up the logistics and finance issues this creates.

At 12/13/12 04:28 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I don't wanna read the whole thread but has anyone brought up the logistics and finance issues this creates.

No, so bring it up.

At 12/13/12 06:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote: No, so bring it up.

What is the cost and logistics of tampons or maxi pads...I'm unsure, but it's just something I've always thought about. There's millions of women in the armed forces. That's a lot of tampons, and a lot of money...

Not saying women should serve, just wondering what kind of impact that has....

At 12/13/12 09:53 PM, Ceratisa wrote: I thought that one was a given increased hygienic costs at least. There are plenty of lists that mention the increased cost for women serving. So thank you Lemon I didn't think it needed to be brought up but I guess it did.

Ah. Someone had mentioned it wasn't mentioned or something...

BTW, I meant to say "Not saying women SHOULDN'T serve"

At 12/14/12 12:36 PM, Ceratisa wrote: And even with all of this they'd still be at increased risk because of their natural born physical differences. This is all so women who are pushing for it, most of which have no military experience can have other women serve in combat?

Well, as much as people hate to hear it, women are indisputably different from men. That isn't sexist, it's just the truth.

Don't women already serve in combat? (Wait, rhetorical question, think about it)

At 12/14/12 11:03 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: Don't women already serve in combat?

Not in combat dedicated units. They only serve in combat when their support unit is attacked.

At 12/15/12 12:04 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/14/12 11:03 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: Don't women already serve in combat?

Not in combat dedicated units. They only serve in combat when their support unit is attacked.

Exactly my point. If they are already in combat zones, why not let those willing and able to fill the role of being of being in a dedicated squad do so.

I'm a vet, army infantry, and my views on this subject are very, very odd. I'm all for letting females (even this isn't the topic I think homos should be allowed to serve openly, in combat) but look at it like this, if there are more males than females in a unit, natural instincts set in, if a soldier has "feelings" for another soldier, they might put themselves at a greater risk than just 2 males or 2 females. Example: crossing a street, sniper puts a round through Janes leg, Joe "loves" Jane and runs out to administer aid, in the process he gets a round in the face. The point I'm trying to make is that if you care a lot for someone you may put yourself in a dangerous situation that you may not have. I believe any women is just as capable of meeting the standards as any man. And in this kind of warfare, the argument that females can't maintain good personal hygiene (periods, yeast infections, etc.) is complete bullshit, this isn't Vietnam or World War 2, soldiers don't stay outta the wire for months at a time. And its' already been proven that females can play a very vital role in the current types of conflicts going on. Example: If you are a male by Sharia law you are not to talk to, look at or even associate with a female, unless she's one of your 6 wives (lawl) so in that situation a female is a necessity. In closing, I think that if females are going to be combat units, and I mean real combat units, not supply, or mechanics that get sent on patrol, the ratio of male to female must get closer to 50-50, look at Isreal, they got female SF, it comes down to using the right tool for the right job. Personally I can't wait until females are seen as equals to males, and ask yourself, Do I like boobs? Yes. Do I like va-jay-jay? Yes. Do I like guns? Yes. Imagine Major Motoko Kusanagi, (GITS, yea I geeked out there for a sec, what's it to ya?) in real life, I'd let her kick my ass just so she get in the mount position, lawl sexism. But seriously, Let women actually reach their full potential.

At 12/11/12 04:31 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 12/11/12 04:28 AM, Nithael wrote: Well whilst it is a biological fact that men are generally built to withstand more physical punishment than women, I dont see how that would affect how well they could do their job in the field. What I mean is, men have an easier time building physical strength and have an innately larger edurance than females, but it doesnt change the fact that what makes a soldier is the will to protect and lay down your life to accomplish your objective. You dont have to have a penis to have the heart of a soldier.

And you haven't read the responses to the thread have you? It isn't just that mixed units AT least don't work. And I'm supposed to be asleep now ><

More likely to be injured not just unable to withstand the physical punishment by the way. And if you get injured you aren't just endangering yourself.

You speak as if the fact that females have a weaker physical structure means they would break their legs from being tapped. The human body is an adaptive machine and will adapt to its conditions, regardless of sex. Sure men have an easier time adapting to these conditions, but that doesnt mean its impossible for a woman to do it. Ive seen several women that could easily outperform many of todays soldiers in physical terms, despite being women. If you have the conviction to do something and train for it, odds are you will do it even if you are a woman.

More likely to be injured not just unable to withstand the physical punishment by the way. And if you get injured you aren't just endangering yourself.

Also, withstanding physical punishment and more likely to be injured is basically the same thing.

I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.

At 12/18/12 03:48 AM, MusicalWonders wrote: I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.

This also proves that some people even to this day understand the meaning to why Soldiers are Soldiers. I don't care of the color of one's skin and I don't care of the gender of the individual, once a Soldier is expected to be treated as a Soldier, nothing more and nothing less.

Why I say this? Because it's the way it's meant to be, all who haven't learned that lesson the easy way will learn that lesson the hard way, especially those who soldiers in the military who think women shouldn't be allowed in combat, for such individuals will learn a harsh lesson for thinking like that.