What happens next? That's right. We send males, only males, to the battle fields. To be shot. Burnt alive in explosions. Captured, possibly. To, in essence, make the ultimate sacrifice.
What ever happened to equality?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Did you forget Jessica Lynch already?
Women are in combat. There are more men over there largely because more men volunteer than women.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I think the point he's trying to make is that we don't force women to go, we only force males.
Personally, I believe we shouldn't force anyone. If they don't have enough people who want to fight, that should show at least an inkling about how people feel about the fighting going on.
Posted by tt&t (Member # 5600) on :
Ooh, I agree with Javert. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If things got bad enough to require a draft (fill in your favorite apocalypse story here) I would still argue against making it mandatory for women. Men, biologically speaking, are more expendable.
It's sexist to assume someone is less capable because of their gender when their gender has no bearing on their performance. Is it sexist when there are actual gender-based reasons for different treatment?
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I'm with Javert.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
I'm afraid I might be sexist, but I have no issues with only drafting men...I have no problem with women volunteering to fight and I feel that when in the military they should be treated equally, but in regards to a mass draft for a particular war, I'd say only men...
[Edit to say that I am a guy...and again to say "what Chris said"]
[ April 25, 2004, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: ReikoDemosthenes ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Right. Because men are biologically more expendable, we should force them to die en mass quanities, while letting women off. Exactly.
You've won me over.
quote: It is possible in Afghanistan for women to be treated like beasts of burden precisely because gender ignorance has been codified into law. We pride ourselves on being democratic, but when it comes to the draft, we aren't much better than the Taliban.
--http://www.fdungan.com/draft.htm
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I propose that we only send men to war, but in order to be fair and unsexist, we randomly select one woman to kill for every man than ends up dying because he was forced to go to war against his will. Eh?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually Phanto I get the feeling that everyone here is against the draft under any circumstances, so I'm not sure whom you're getting indignant towards. In my own example I purposely referenced an end-of-the-world situation, where the protection of women would be more important.
You didn't ask whether or not I approved of the draft, you asked that in the event of a draft if it was sexist to only send the males, and that's what I answered.
[ April 25, 2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
fyi, women cannot go into any of the combat arm military specialties.
In theory, they can't be sent into combat. However, combat does come to them, as it did with Jessica Lynch.
I think women should not be drafted, but then again I am opposed to women being in anything but the most drastically understaffed positions in the military.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
Personally, I'm opposed to placing women in positions where they have a high chance to be raped, like in POW camps, probably repeatedly, possibly over a span of years. I suppose arguably men could suffer the same kind of treatment, but hey, women are just more appealing.
Anyway, as far as the draft is concerned I would only support it if we have to defend the country, as in under a state of war, not a so-called "police action." The draft is there to produce infantry. If women are kept out of the infantry (not logistics, as Pvt Lynch was a part of, despite being deployed) then why would it matter whether or not they were drafted?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Why?
Just curious. I don't have a problem with women in any part of the military, as long as they're competent and want to be there.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I agree w/ Javert, but only because I don't want to work w/ anyone that doesn't want to be there.
Posted by LOVE AND PEACE (Member # 6455) on :
so in the event we have to force people to the in the army, we repress women like the taliban by making the men go to war? no women are repressed by making men do something.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I agree with Chris.
quote: We pride ourselves on being democratic, but when it comes to the draft, we aren't much better than the Taliban.
Whether the draft is undemocratic is a different issue to whether it should be gender specific.
Do I think drafting anyone is a good idea? No. And I will not vote for anyone who suggests reinstating it in my country.
If there was a draft, do I have a problem with the concept of social survival being recognised? No way. I would still argue against the draft - but because I think a draft is inherently wrong, not the fact that only one gender is being drafted.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think there is nothing inherently wrong with the draft. In the right situation, I could support it. I am very glad that the draft was instated for some of the wars that the US has been involved in.
But I cannot imagine any situation where I would support the draft of women. I guess I'm sexist that way.
[ April 25, 2004, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Sure, it's sexist to say that men should go out and die to protect me. I don't support the draft at all, and I do think it's somewhat discriminatory to draft only men. However, Chris has a good point--in some sort of apocalyptic war, it will be absolutely vital to protect the women of childbearing age. If all but one man and a million women survive a war, the human race will have a decent chance of continuing. If there's a million men and one woman, humans will die off.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sexism is discrimination based on gender. This is universally considered to be bad, but some sexist things simply are.
Men get to use urinals, women don't (at least not without help).
Women don't get prostate cancer, men do. (Of course, men rarely get ovarian cysts, either)
Med tend to get pattern baldness much more than women.
Women tend to live longer.
These aren't "fair," but they're not examples of bias, either.
I'm not talking about who gets paid more, or who can go topless in public. Certain biological differences define behavior and political correctness fails when it defies reality. A lasting society must be based, ultimately, on "women and children first" if it is to keep lasting. We're a long way from having to worry about population problems, but if situations occurred where we were forced to fire up the draft again -- something that a clear majority of Americans are against -- it'll be for the men.
[ April 25, 2004, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
I have no problem with drafting women to fill so-called non-combat positions. But again, I would not want to serve with most of the results of a contemporary draft.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
If you want to understand why drafting women for combat is a bad idea, to a statistical analysis of what the populations of european nations would have been after world war I if france, germany, russia, etc. had been sending women to the front lines.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
And if you do that, please post it. I would be very interested.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Ummm... since when has there been a war that has come anywhere close to killing off ALL the soldiers of a given side? It's absurd to base policy on the notion that that will happen. If it did, it wouldn't even matter, because our country would be counquered once we lose all our soldiers.
There will be plenty of women left for childbearing no matter what happens in the war. That's a virtual certainty.
And the fact of the matter is, we are a society that has outlawed discrimination by gender. It is 100% unfair to complain about companies paying women less money but then only force men to go to war. If women want the benefits of no gender discrimination, they will have to accept the costs of being equal - and that includes having to go to war, should such a policy be implemented.
[ April 25, 2004, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Unfair? Yes. Against the law? Probably. Is that going to change? No.
I would fight long and hard to keep women from being drafted. I don't think that I can justify it in legal, moral, or religious argument. The whole idea of protecting the womb doesn't do much for me either. It just seems wrong to ask women to go to war.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
In the countries where men and women both serve, have we seen dire results? In Israel, women have always been soldiers. Can anyone tell us how this has worked out there?
I am with Eowyn. Women bear the cost of war in many ways. To dictate that we must sit on our hands at home and wait is not right. In other words, you have our leave to die in wars, just not to fight in them. How much sense does that make?
Granted, I do believe that standards for various jobs should not be relaxed for women's sake. The same standards for fitness, ability to carry things, etc, should apply to women who wish to serve in combat positions as for men. But what I do know is that every time a new job in the military has been opened up for women, women came to fill that job who were better at it than some of the men who had done it. In other words, the very best qualified women were superior to the least qualified men in that position. Averages make no difference. What matters is individuals.
The reason the U.S. is a global power is that our society is free and open, and encourages excellence... because we extend opportunity to all. Obviously, when you disqualify half the population at the outset, you are going to get less talented people in general than you could have had. We are superior because our society reflects reality. People of all backgrounds have ability and drive to succeed. By encouraging merit and free competition, we achieve excellence. Refusing jobs to women is contrary to that spirit of America, and detracts from our national efforts.
I say the draft should be used only in direst of circumstances when the survival of the country is at stake, yet if it is used, it should apply equally to men and women.
[ April 25, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I think it would be much more unfair to force a woman into any situation where combat is likely for the simple reason that women have babies and men don't.
A woman can never be 100% certain at any given moment that she is not pregnant unless she is sterile or celibate. All the pills and Depo in the world still have a chance of failure. To put women into situations where they could easily miscarry before they even know they are carrying a child who needs their protection is irresponsible.
Miscarriages place an extreme emotional and physical burden on a woman. They are more physically taxing than a single pregnancy. They can require grief counseling and antidepressants. And those are just the spontanious miscarriages noone caused or could prevent. How much worse would it be if the woman had to live knowing the miscarriage was her own fault? How does she weigh helping a fallen soldier with the knowledge that she could be killing her child?
The only way to ensure women would not be pregnant on the battlefield is to force them to be sterilized or celibate. Neither is required of men. That to me would be worse discrimination than forcing only men to fight to protect our country.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ak- at least in israel, women do not serve as frontline soldiers. They serve in the airforce as pilots, and as sappers, and in support positions. I think this is, basically, a wise decision.
I did an analysis of world war 1 a few years ago for ornery, its gone, but it was fascinating. If women had served and died at the same rates as men, by the time world war II rolled around, the population of europe would have been about 60% of what it actually was. There was a HUGE population boom from 1918-1921 in England, France, Germany, and Russia, that makes our Baby Boomer generation look like peanuts. Without the women of child bearing age that these nations had, that boom would have never happened, and those were the men who served in world war II. Now, maybe it would have been GOOD if we'd had a lot less people of combat age around during the 1940's, but, on the other hand, maybe what would have happened is ANOTHER huge war with smaller populations, making it even more necessary for women to serve, and, well, that would be really bad.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Several people have mentioned that they would support the draft only in "circumstances when the survival of the country is at stake", as ak put it.
But, would we really need the draft then? At the moment, if there were a draft, men would be sent across the Atlantic in order to fight battles that not everyone agrees we should be fighting.
But if there were circumstances where the survival of the country is at stake, I would assume that would mean the United States was being invaded or otherwise attacked.
In that case, I think a lot of people would immediately sign up and join the army. And even those who didn't join up, I'm sure they would fight back.
A lot of people, myself included, see what is going on in Iraq as something that really shouldn't have involved us. But if our country was attacked and some other group tried to take us over, I think a lot of people would be willing to fight to stop that. At least I would.
And, wow, I've really gotten away from the subject of women in the draft. Sorry...
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Oh well, threads morph and mutate, and branch out and stuff. It's all good.
A lot of people don't see that they EVER have a duty to fight. They will let others do that, and stay safe themselves. I do feel the draft is necessary in some circumstances. But definitely should be all-encompassing. It's not right for people of privilege to be able to get out of it. If anything, the rich and powerful should go FIRST, since they have so many more interests to protect. They should not be able to send off those less fortunate to fight in their places.
And I'm not sure a higher population is such a great thing, either. That argument is not convincing to me.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yeah, but high populations are in the national interest.
I'm not stating this is a moral reason for not having women in the front lines, I'm basically arguing its why we'll never see nations draft women to the front. ITs a really bad idea, from a state's perspective.
Personally, I think its compelling enough for the state to have an overriding interest so that it can be sexist. As stated by others, sexism isn't inherently evil... its not sexist, for example, for me to state that men cannot become pregnant. And thats basically what the statement is as to why the state has an overriding interest in terms of drafting women, as far as front lines combat.
Its not compelling enough to leave women out of the draft entirely, since women actually, on average, have better genetic abilities that make them more fit for certain military duties... such as flying fighters.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
War's primary purpose is to kill and disable healthy young men so that dirty old men have a chance to score on young women.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Did you forget Jessica Lynch already?
She wasn't in a combat squad. They were ambushed.
Don't get me wrong, I think Lynch and others who had to go through similar excruciating experiences are tough, but women have always been pigeonholed as non-combat soldiers. For good or bad, that's what happens.
Not that I think men make better soldiers.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, there's also the fact that if you place men and women in a combat situation, men are much more likely to endanger themselves trying to protect women.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
As a parent, when I look in the living room and see my son playing his guitar and my daughter reading a book, I wonder who it was who decided that my son's life is worth less than my daughter's.
I am all teary just thinking about it.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:I wonder who it was who decided that my son's life is worth less than my daughter's.
It's not that it's decided that your son's life is worth less, it's that your son can contribute more to the defense of the nation than your daughter can when it comes to battling on the front lines.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
We should draft solely out of the bottom ten percent of high school graduating classes.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:It's not that it's decided that your son's life is worth less, it's that your son can contribute more to the defense of the nation than your daughter can when it comes to battling on the front lines.
And perhaps the daughter is also less capable of doing construction work, and scientific research, and working in politics...
Are we back in the habit of declaring one gender better at given tasks now?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:We should draft solely out of the bottom ten percent of high school graduating classes.
Really? Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"We should draft solely out of the bottom ten percent of high school graduating classes."
I hope you are joking, but...
Ironically, kids who quit school and do not get a GED are no longer welcome to apply to the military.(at least the Marines, I am probably wrong about the other divisions) Going into the military used to be a way for a young man who was not into school to get a good jumpstart in life in the service.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Are we back in the habit of declaring one gender better at given tasks now?
No, that's just a wrong assumption you're making about what I said. I didn't say why the son would do more good on the front lines. It's not because men are superior soldiers (I'm not saying they are), it's because other men would risk their lives in more dangerous ways to save women rather than a fellow man. Men have always felt the need to protect women.
I don't think women are weaker. I know a few ladies who might be able to whoop me. I know tons of women who are far smarter than me. In short, I don't think a woman makes a worse soldier, but I do think they would do less good than a man on the battlefield with other men present.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Men have always felt the need to protect women."
Well, no, not always.
Men protect men in dangerous ways, as well. In fact, I am quite sure there are about a gazillion historical records to prove it. There are also a few novels, and even a movie or two, about the subject of men risking their lives to save a friend.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
And what if the man has feelings for the woman?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
And what if the man has feelings for the man?
Edit: Sorry, that was really silly of me. I do mean it, though. Feelings of sexual love and feelings of friendship love can be equally strong. I just don;t buy it as a reason for women not to serve in battle if they can prove, as men do, that they can.
[ April 25, 2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I just don;t buy it as a reason for women not to serve in battle if they can prove, as men do, that they can.
I'm not arguing that. I'm just telling you why the people in the Selective Services are not letting women be drafted. I don't necessarily agree either. I'm just playing devils advocate, as I often do.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Well, no, not always.
By the way, can you back that up? Men have been Guardians/hunters/protectors/providers for centuries. Now that civilization has come around, women can easily fend for themselves, rather than solely nurture children. That's how it used to be when it was small villages of people. In some places of the world, it's still that way. It's not that way anymore (thankfully).
[ April 25, 2004, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Yes, Nick, I can back it up. I was referring to spousal abuse. Not all men have the protection thing going on, I am sad to say.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
That also has been around for as long as recorded history. Look at the people living in huts in Africa and South America, do you think the mates of the men go unharmed? They provide for them and sometimes, unfortunately, strike them.
[ April 25, 2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:No, that's just a wrong assumption you're making about what I said. I didn't say why the son would do more good on the front lines. It's not because men are superior soldiers (I'm not saying they are), it's because other men would risk their lives in more dangerous ways to save women rather than a fellow man. Men have always felt the need to protect women.
And how is this not calling men better at that a particular job (soldier) than women?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I don't know how you got that from the paragraph, but I will try as best as I can to explain: It's not that men are better (as I explicitly said that they are not), it's the tendency to want to protect women in possibly more dangerous ways that makes women less effective, not their ability.
[ April 25, 2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Wouldn't that be the men's problem if they can't work as well with women around? Why should the women be the ones restricted? If the men in an office say they can't work as well with women around, should women not be hired?
edit: And are there studies that have shown this, or are you just going by your individual feelings?
[ April 25, 2004, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
Sex is not really an issue when it comes to saving someone in battle. People get redused to Alive and Dead. A person is just as likely to try and save someone they dont like as they are to save someone they do. It boils down to humanitly of the situation.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Wouldn't that be the men's problem if they can't work as well with women around? Why should the women be the ones restricted? If the men in an office say they can't work as well with women around, should women not be hired?
Then draft only women then.
I'm kidding of course. It's not only my feelings that men feel the need to protect women. If a average man with at least some morality saw a woman being raped/jumped, would he not try and stop it?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Actually, that makes for a good point. What would happen if we drafted only women?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that Nick is saying that having the women-folk back home to protect makes the men better soldiers. Is that fair to say?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
OK, listen.
You do not want, EVER, an army of women.
Read Steven Pressfield's The Last Amazon to learn why.
Remember, fellas, women who live together menstruate together. ha ha ha.
Sorry!!
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I'm not saying that women can't be every bit as capable as a man at being a soldier. Just because it creates complications doesn't make either men or women better, but it does change who is better suited to be in the given situation.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
The army could put all the women on birth control pills and stagger the cycles so they don't menstrute together.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:It's not that men are better (as I explicitly said that they are not), it's the tendency to want to protect women in possibly more dangerous ways that makes women less effective, not their ability.
That just would mean their ability is not why they are better. You are still saying they are better.
It'd be like not hiring women at a science lab on the grounds that, even though the women are just as smart, they'd cause the men there to act differently. That's still sexism.
quote:If a average man with at least some morality saw a woman being raped/jumped, would he not try and stop it?
If an average women with at least some morality saw a man being raped/jumped, would she not try and stop it?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: No, that's just a wrong assumption you're making about what I said. I didn't say why the son would do more good on the front lines. It's not because men are superior soldiers (I'm not saying they are), it's because other men would risk their lives in more dangerous ways to save women rather than a fellow man. Men have always felt the need to protect women.
Don't used mixed attack groups. Use pure male and pure female groups.
Any why am I ticked off?
Because I see men around me signing sheets authorizing the government to call them up and have them deported to the fields of Iraq or wherever to die. To be burnt alive when captured; look at what happened to the contractors. To slog through swamps, snipers picking their friends off one by one. To have their helicopters downed by stinger missles. To leave their families, maybe never to return.
The list goes on...
And if anyone refuses to sign his life away, his domestic life is ruined.
And we force this death only on males.
[ April 25, 2004, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Do you think there'd be grounds for a lawsuit on the matter against the government?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Phanto, you're signing the sheet so the government can keep track of you. You will not be sent to Iraq. The draft will probably never be reinstated becuase the army doesn't need that many bullet sponges now.
The only reason this subject has even come up is because the Democrats hate Bush and will say anything to hurt his reelection chances. They don't like the war in Iraq, they know half the country doesn't like the war in Iraq, so it's the perfect scare tactic. It makes for an interesting philosophical debate, but it's really nothing to get worked up about. None of those horrible things will happen to any of your friends unless they volunteer to serve and get really unlucky.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Then I suppose it woudl surprise you to learn the bush administration is quietly filling up draft board positions around teh country?
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
AvidReader, you should look at the other draft topic before you spout lies like that.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: That just would mean their ability is not why they are better. You are still saying they are better.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. I never said they were better. "Better" and "better suited to a situation" are two totally different things.
quote: If an average women with at least some morality saw a man being raped/jumped, would she not try and stop it?
Ah, but how would she stop it?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I'd use my sword! *brandish*
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm glad they don't draft women because then when both I and Mack get drafted into the same unit I'd be really embaressed when she showed me up.
Hobbes Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I think that Nick is saying that having the women-folk back home to protect makes the men better soldiers. Is that fair to say?
No, but having them there makes them fight worse.
EDIT: and for the record, I don't like the call them women-folk. Your words, not mine.
[ April 26, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, clearly if the military wants to encourage soldiers to see each other as 'just people', they should have unisex housing and showers, yes?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't see how "Puritan" is a contradiction to "equality and freedom".
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
But there are distinctions between the genders. We can argue about how it effects drafting and being an effective soldier, but until you show me how I can give birth to a child I'm going to be mighty skeptical of any claim that there isn't any "distinction between genders". And as long as there is a distinction, I don't see any problem in treating people of different genders differently. Of course that doesn't mean that one gender is inherintly inferior, or that it excuses all treatment of women or men just because they're different. I figured this argument was about how much the differences effect women and men's ability to fight, I just can't imagine actually thinking that women and men are identical.
Hobbes Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: The USPS has the forms that state all men from the age of 18 to 25 (I believe, or 35) are required to submit and if they don't there is a pretty high fine.
If they wanted women to be part of it too, they would have said all US Citizens.
Hey, I'm a woman and I am not complaining about it
I recognize it's sexist towards men but, for centuries men have been the warriors, the soldiers, the knights, why change it now? They don't mind it.
You know a lot. A lot.
But still not enough.
quote: I recognize it's sexist towards men but, for centuries men have been the warriors, the soldiers, the knights, why change it now? They don't mind it.
Which is why we force all men at age 18 to sign their lives away?
quote: They don't mind it.
Oh, I see. Sorry, could I hear that again?
quote: They don't mind it.
quote:They don't mind it.
[ April 26, 2004, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by combustia (Member # 6328) on :
*cough*ass*cough*
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, that's just a wrong assumption you're making about what I said. I didn't say why the son would do more good on the front lines. It's not because men are superior soldiers (I'm not saying they are), it's because other men would risk their lives in more dangerous ways to save women rather than a fellow man. Men have always felt the need to protect women. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And how is this not calling men better at that a particular job (soldier) than women?
Well, I think men in general are better at that particular job than women. It's a job that requires a high level of physical strength and stamina, and men are in general, stronger than women.
That's not to say that women can't be good soldiers, or that there aren't some women who could kick nearly any man's butt, but if we're speaking in generalities I see no reason to avoid the obvious.
As for women in the Army, I don't see a problem with letting them do anything they want, incuding being a front-line soldier, as long as they meet all the requirements that a man would have to. We want the best of the best to be out there, and if some of that category happen to be women, great.
I don't know how I would feel about women in the draft. I don't know how I feel about the draft in general, so I can't really say.
[ April 26, 2004, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Kamisaki ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: the soldiers shouldn't have a problem to have showers together (men and women), but we Americans are still too Puritan to do that
I'm very glad that we are.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
combustia, tossing around words the Cards don't like before you're even 10 posts in is a *bad* idea.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Well then I would hope the Cards realize that it's not the ten posts that determines a member's value. They're wiser than that.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Nick, you're just looking for a fight today!
Sheesh! Clearly, the Cards are very discerning hosts. Clearly, combustia doesn't know their rules yet. Clearly I am *only trying to help*!
Posted by combustia (Member # 6328) on :
Considering Lalo is allowed to repeatedly type the S-word, I think the synonym for donkey would be okay.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
IMO the only war worthy enough for a draft is a war so important it is worth EVERYONE who can fight to fight in it--without regard for age or gender.
If it can't pass that test, we shouldn't draft.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Nick, you're just looking for a fight today!
Sheesh! Clearly, the Cards are very discerning hosts. Clearly, combustia doesn't know their rules yet. Clearly I am *only trying to help*!
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I was clearly out of line. I'm trying not to be mad at you from the other thread. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm sorry.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm sorry.