Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/4/07 12:18 AM, fastbow wrote: I saw that flaw in my logic, TheMason, and I realize it. I am just arguing my opinion here.

Of course I'll hold to my opinion. I also hold the opinion we can't fight war correctly anymore...

I actually agree with your second point about how we cannot fight a war correctly anymore, but that has more to do with Vietnam than women in Command and Combat roles.

On some level I can respect that you remain entrenched in your position, however I also think that you are allowing biases cloud your judgement and you're refusing to look at the reality of the issue.

At 3/4/07 12:41 PM, Togukawa wrote: If "men are physically superior" and *insert other stereotypes here* are not enough reasons to allow ALL men to join the military, why would they be enough to refuse all women?

Men physically superior is not a stereotype and biological fact. We allow women in the military, just not on the frontlines where shell-shock, constant physical exertion or injury is a possibility.

At 3/4/07 01:12 PM, fastbow wrote:

That's all well and good, but what about personal elationships? Most men I know are less effective around women for a variety of reasons. If women are in combat situations, I could see groups of just females fighting together, but male soldiers too? I just think there would be problems along the lines of the Colorado University's football experiences with women.,..

;
WOW
You know what that's the mans problem.
Why are you attempting to shift the blame over onto the women?
DOUBLE WOW {quote from above"I just think}
problem is your not thinking
your seriously attempting to use the antics of a bunch of football jocks & the problems those assholes caused, with combat trained men & women and their jobs.
Boy oh boy your really scraping the bottom of the barrel there boss.
All you have is an opinion (that in reality is formed from the opinions you've heard from others) that opinion is pretty much Sexist.

Your not going on skill level or competence, experience or ability.
Your not providing any real concrete reasons why women shouldn't be allowed to function in the military where they are best suited.
But earlier I believe you said that they were fine as long as they were in the rear some place or at a desk.
Your just a sexist bastard.
Who's attempting to hide that behind an opinion ,yours as well as your great friends.

Fighting is for men! Cleaning is for woman!

I like the idea that woman are doing this sort of thing. More meat for the grinder.

At 3/4/07 04:48 PM, morefngdbs wrote: WOW
You know what that's the mans problem.
Why are you attempting to shift the blame over onto the women?
DOUBLE WOW {quote from above"I just think}
problem is your not thinking
your seriously attempting to use the antics of a bunch of football jocks & the problems those assholes caused, with combat trained men & women and their jobs.
Boy oh boy your really scraping the bottom of the barrel there boss.
All you have is an opinion (that in reality is formed from the opinions you've heard from others) that opinion is pretty much Sexist.

No, I'm using the antics of professional soldiers I know. I love most of the women I am around, so yes, I probably am sexist. I believe that complete slaughter is a part of war. I do not believe that women should be exposed to things like that. Taking prisioners is all well and good, but sometimes, especially with people of the Mid-East, you just have to kill and keep killing until they are too afraid to fight. I would never require a woman to preform executions. I would require it of soldiers, though. We are fighting people of a religion built on slaughter. We must fight them on their own terms to win.

Your not going on skill level or competence, experience or ability.
Your not providing any real concrete reasons why women shouldn't be allowed to function in the military where they are best suited.

Is that concrete enough for you?

But earlier I believe you said that they were fine as long as they were in the rear some place or at a desk.
Your just a sexist bastard.
Who's attempting to hide that behind an opinion ,yours as well as your great friends.

Yay! Ad hominem! You, sir are a true orator. Also, could you please tell me what that last sentance said? I can't understand it...

At 3/4/07 11:53 PM, fastbow wrote:

Yay! I can't understand it...

;
You are unable to understand something?
Why am I not surprised.

At 3/5/07 02:33 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 3/4/07 11:53 PM, fastbow wrote:

Yay! I can't understand it...

;
You are unable to understand something?
Why am I not surprised.

First unreadable posts, then, inane Ad Hominem attacks, now misquotes!

Do you work for CNN or as a democratic speechwriter?

Seriously, reply like a real human. Grow another brain cell so you can have a synapse and learn a little about proper argument.

At 3/5/07 02:37 PM, fastbow wrote:

First unreadable posts, then, inane Ad Hominem attacks, now misquotes!

Seriously, reply like a real human. Grow another brain cell so you can have a synapse and learn a little about proper argument.

;
YAWN,

Unless you decide to reply to the issue, I'm done here.

At 3/4/07 01:12 PM, fastbow wrote: That's all well and good, but what about personal elationships? Most men I know are less effective around women for a variety of reasons. If women are in combat situations, I could see groups of just females fighting together, but male soldiers too? I just think there would be problems along the lines of the Colorado University's football experiences with women.,..

There are all sorts of personal relationships that exist between people. There are certain men that I am less effective around because they are either a good friend or someone who just pisses me off...both can distract me from my mission and cloud my judgement. Are there problems created by a co-ed environment? Yes, but really none any better or worse than the interpersonal relationships between men.

Could you refresh my memory on the specific problem with the CU football team? I have some thoughts about that, but want to make sure I'm addressing them correctly...

But I have seen many mil-mil couples, even serving in the same unit. Once a couple gets married one gets transfered to a different unit or section for conflict of interest concerns. I have seen no relationship in my (going on) seven years of service where a romantic interest produced a negative effect on moral any worse than same gender platonic relationships. In fact I would say the platonic relationships are worse since they inspire clicks and favoritism.

One thing that I will give you that women present a unique problem is in terms of pregnancy. Some women use their pregnancies to get out of an unpopular assignment (Iraq or Korea) or even get out of the service. On this I think we should pick a side and either bar women from roles such as combat pilots, etc or make it iron-clad that they cannot get out of their contract after pregnancy or go on that remote assignment when their child hits one year...

At 3/5/07 05:29 PM, TheMason wrote: There are all sorts of personal relationships that exist between people. There are certain men that I am less effective around because they are either a good friend or someone who just pisses me off...both can distract me from my mission and cloud my judgement. Are there problems created by a co-ed environment? Yes, but really none any better or worse than the interpersonal relationships between men.

True... I'll admit that it works both ways...

Could you refresh my memory on the specific problem with the CU football team? I have some thoughts about that, but want to make sure I'm addressing them correctly...

the kicker who was the first female D-I NCAA football player and got the crap raped out of her, and all the problems that rose up from that. It's a lot of men in a very testosterone-heavy environment, not so unlike the military. I just think it would be detrimental to put people in situations like that.

But I have seen many mil-mil couples, even serving in the same unit. Once a couple gets married one gets transfered to a different unit or section for conflict of interest concerns. I have seen no relationship in my (going on) seven years of service where a romantic interest produced a negative effect on moral any worse than same gender platonic relationships. In fact I would say the platonic relationships are worse since they inspire clicks and favoritism.

All right. I will concede this point since you speak from experience. I did not.

One thing that I will give you that women present a unique problem is in terms of pregnancy. Some women use their pregnancies to get out of an unpopular assignment (Iraq or Korea) or even get out of the service. On this I think we should pick a side and either bar women from roles such as combat pilots, etc or make it iron-clad that they cannot get out of their contract after pregnancy or go on that remote assignment when their child hits one year...

That's one reason why I think women should have low stress jobs in the rear, so things like this won't be such a problem. At least they should be reassigned to such jobs in teh event of a pregnancy.

One idea I wouldn't object to is women being assigned to their own units, like black people were for years. I know that sounds really bad, but hear me out. Now, we accept black men as normal in any situation, but that took years. I think if we introduced female combat troops in such a way, it would be easier to gradually integrate them. After all, one reason I am opposed to co-ed units is the drain on resources caused by things like seperate bathrooms, and other things some women would demand. An all-female unit would have no such problems. I could support something like that, and who knows? Maybe in 20-50 years, society will have overcome hormonal craziness and men will be able to coexist with women as equals in all ways....

At 3/5/07 05:29 PM, TheMason wrote:

One thing that I will give you that women present a unique problem is in terms of pregnancy. Some women use their pregnancies to get out of an unpopular assignment (Iraq or Korea) or even get out of the service. On this I think we should pick a side and either bar women from roles such as combat pilots, etc or make it iron-clad that they cannot get out of their contract after pregnancy or go on that remote assignment when their child hits one year...

;
Pretty much what you say about 'useing' pregnancy to get out of assignments.
Could be handled in house.
Have rules that slow your advancement, or pigeon hole you in a position that isn't what your seeking.
THey deal with males who are not physically fit for example.
There are cases where men have deliberately hurt themselves so they can't be shipped out.
There are problems health, family, personal etc. that can affect any person no matter the gender from being unable to serve for a certain amount of time.
These types of challenges are being dealt with every day.
But I stand on my earlier comments, anyone reguardless of age, gender, race or sexual orientation if they meet the requirements to serve their country.
They should be allowed to serve in that capacity. period.

The question isn't "Why should women be in the military?" It's "Why shouldn't women be in the military?"

At 3/6/07 07:31 AM, The-evil-bucket wrote: The question isn't "Why should women be in the military?" It's "Why shouldn't women be in the military?"

Scroll up. Several of us offered several reasons....

At 3/6/07 07:31 AM, The-evil-bucket wrote: The question isn't "Why should women be in the military?" It's "Why shouldn't women be in the military?"

;
About the only half decent reason given is the fact that women can get pregnant.
No thought is given on the fact women don't just instantly get pregnant (& somehow become instantly useless) for know discernable reason.
Women who are responsible, or career oriented often take great pains to insure they cannot/do not, get pregnant.
I do agree with , 'why shouldn't women be in the military'

At 3/6/07 12:57 PM, morefngdbs wrote: About the only half decent reason given is the fact that women can get pregnant.
No thought is given on the fact women don't just instantly get pregnant (& somehow become instantly useless) for know discernable reason.
Women who are responsible, or career oriented often take great pains to insure they cannot/do not, get pregnant.
I do agree with , 'why shouldn't women be in the military'

About the only halfway decent reason given is that women can get pregnant. No thought is given to the fact that women don't instantly get pregnant, and somehow become instatnly useless, for no discernable reason. Women who are responsible, or carreer oriented, often take great pains to insure they do not, or in some cases, cannot get pregnant.

In closing, I do agree with the statement, "why shouldn't women be in the military?"

Isn't it much better when written in English? You occasionally make a valid point, but it is always lost in your lack of language skills. Please pay attention to your 6th grade english teacher.

This is not the only reason women should not be allowed to serve as combat troops. They are usually not as physically tough as males, or as mentally equipped to handle slaughter. Psychological damage is common in male soldiers, and it has been proven time and time again that women are more prone to psychological damage than men. We have enough fucked-up attention whores in this nation already.

At 3/5/07 05:54 PM, fastbow wrote: One idea I wouldn't object to is women being assigned to their own units, like black people were for years. I know that sounds really bad, but hear me out. Now, we accept black men as normal in any situation, but that took years. I think if we introduced female combat troops in such a way, it would be easier to gradually integrate them. After all, one reason I am opposed to co-ed units is the drain on resources caused by things like seperate bathrooms, and other things some women would demand. An all-female unit would have no such problems. I could support something like that, and who knows? Maybe in 20-50 years, society will have overcome hormonal craziness and men will be able to coexist with women as equals in all ways....

Actually having all-female units would not alleviate this problem (which has already been solved and isn't much, if any, of a drain on resources) because housing/billeting is something that exists outside of the workplace and the genders are segregated here and the vast majority of military buildings already have seperate M/F restrooms...even 50 yr old hangers in Kunsan, Korea...

Ok. I'm off my rocker...

I am wrong... On that point at least...