Woman Fighting on the frontline

i'm as much of a pacifest as anyone and i've never been a fan of affirmative action etc.my point is that it should be an individuals choice whether to go into combat male or female.it's their lives and their bodies.so i guess i'm not looking at it as a gender issue but as an individuals choice.i certainly don't encourage military service to anyone.war is a terrible thing.and i can certainly understand everyone's viewpoints on this topic.....and i might bring up here a related topic.i think one of the reasons so many join the military is the g.i. bill for education.i think it was pretty good when there is a draft because in many cases people's education were interuppted because of the military.i don't feel it's a neceassay thing with an all volunteer military.

 

It's true that you have a right to fight, but not necessarily alongside others, if they don't want you.

Sebastunes: It seems you've asked a question that you've already decided has no answer. If the answer given is no, that women shouldn't have that equal right, your response is that this answer goes against the ideals of feminism. Fair enough. But if the answer is yes, women should have that right, you just demonize the military (not that I'm arguing) and ask why anyone would want the right to kill people. It's a bit nonsensical.

 

First, it is an individual's choice to join but it is based upon gender whether or not someone will be considered frontline/combat.

I am glad that you brought up the GI bill, however. There are more jobs out there than you need a degree for. In the military many trades are learned such as electronics, electrical work, HVAC, and on and on. Those who finish their service often obtain jobs from the skill set they have developed. The point I wish to make is that if you (in the general sense) are killed in combat or suffer an injury such as amputation your ability to take advantage of these skills is limited. By not including women in the frontlines men fill those spots instead and thus have a reduced return opporunity for their service.

 

So because women wanted to vote,receive equal pay for equal work,be able to buy houses,cars,ect in their own names instead of being refused those rights and having to depend on a man to have credit or no -go on the deals---so because they have agitated for these things--they should have the privelege of being given guns,shipped to the frontlines and ripped to shreds right along side the men?In the immoral and foolish escapades that men have started forever over power and resources to enrich them selves?The mothers of children.Your mothers?Sisters?Fucken pathetic.I was going to say either you get it or you don't--but this is 2009 and I remember.Things have changed.Think I'll go out and kick a few girls asses tonight.Bitches better be able to protect themselves.

 

You're severely deluding yourself if you thing that the average man has any more interest in war than the average woman. Everyone who goes to war for these big interests does so because they've been forced to through lies, manipulation and propaganda, and sometimes are even forced outright, in the case of conscription. Everyone has the choice whether to go or not, but women should not be exempt from ever having to fight.

Your assertion seems to be that men-in-general start wars, which is disgustingly stupid.

 

So you think women start wars?Names?

 

That's not logical. The fact that one man starts a war doesn't mean all men support it. People start wars because they have something to gain from it. The average man has nothing to gain and everything to lose; he goes to fight because he's been convinced that this isn't so. Men and women do terrible things because it's in their interest, whether it's something as large as a war or not. No one except a psychopath (which these people are) is willing to do these things if they have nothing to gain, and most won't do them even if they do. It's not a matter of men and women, but of those with a conscience and those without.

And if you want examples of women who had no conscience, look at Bloody Mary or Elizabeth Bathory. Those are some prominent names from a very long list. While they may not have started any wars (though in the former's case, it was close), they certainly would not have shrunk from doing so if it served their purposes.

 

Allow me to direct the discussion back to the issue.

The armed forces have a variety of jobs and occupations. Women spent a great deal of energy in orderr to be included in the armed forces. However, because they are only considered for a subset of those jobs which excludes frontline combat, women who opt to take the opportunities offered by the armed forces disproportionately serve in positions that have reduced danger. Therefore men opt to serve are disproportionately placed in dangerous positions and receive less consideration for those which are not dangerous.

So, women have specifically "agitated" to be a part of the military. However, those who push for this ask to be given the benefits without risk of the cons. Those benefits would not exist without the cons.

Try addressing that instead of running off on a tangent.

 

Good point.

 

i'm not agreeing that women should have to go into combat because men do.i can't get into that.i'm just saying that if a woman wants to be in the infantry (as some men do) she should be considered...a word or two about rear echelon soldiers.team work is essential and the troops out on the trail would be up shit creek without the troops that are backing them up.these people are exposed to danger also.

 

True. They are exposed to danger. A prime example being the girl who was taken prisoner early in the Iraq invasion.

 

I have addressed the issue.What I understand you'all to be saying is that since women agitated to be equal with men in all ways,now they should "take their medicine and like it"-ie-be subjected to the insanity of combat also.In other words,if they want equality so bad,by god they can get out there and get killed/captured like the rest of us.You might ask yourselves why half the population had to agitate for equal rights in the first place.Remember--they're the ones that for countless thousands of years stayed home and tended the home fires while their men hunted and indulged in their power games which affected both sexes.With whom and why did they have to agitate to get any rights in the first place??Oh yeah--I guess it was men that somehow had more rights inherantly or from the bible or other such bs . .Anyway we'll have to agree to disagree.We obviously will never agree on this at all.I don't mind if your sisters want to be nurses ,paper pushers ,truck drivers ,ect in the military--let's just say it offends my sensibilities to think of them shot up,blown up or captured by the likes of the taliban or anyone else.The exception=if we are invaded by another country,everyone gets in the streets with guns.I don't have anything to say about it anyway.Just how I feel.

 

Actually,up until the powers that be it made almost impossible for 1 person to support a family,women weren't that big of a factor in the work force.When ww2 broke out they were needed in the factories here to help with the war machine.Hence "rosie the riveters".They're still celebrated for helping out in that way.

 

What you're saying is that there's a great divide between the sexes, men being inherently warlike and women being inherently peaceful. You're saying that all men should pay for the crimes of a few, and that all women are innocent. It's indefensible, as you've shown by refusing to answer any of the arguments against it and simply reiterating what you've already said.

 

i don't know what else to say about it.as interesting as the subject is...i don't feel i need to argue anything i pretty much just express my views off the top of my head.maybe it's just a form of gentlemanliness that i don't want others getting hurt or killed especially women though i respect their right to the kind of work they want to do even though it maybe dangerous.part of it is being a dad to daughters and my own experiences back in the 60's.i tend to go with my gut feelings and not so much on facts and figures.so those are my views on the subject.so i think i'm about done on this subject.i don't like to cop out though.so i'll be around....i'm glad the rosie the riveters got mentioned though.that is quite a time in history ,the folks keeping the ball rolling in the foundries and shipyards etc......edit after 37.yeah my ex too.

 

(to post 35)Likewise,Im sure.I'm against war and nobody should pay for the crimes of "those who rule".But unfortunately,humankind can't seem to evolve naturally into a peacefull state.Greed and pwer over others is hard to overcome.And yes,I do think women are inherantly more peace-seeking than men.(my ex-wife not included!)

 

I answered as clearly as I can,Mr Grape.I don't know what other issue you want me to address.

 

This animosity is becoming tiresome but I will address it.

No, we are saying that since women are not serving in the cobat positions men who might wish to take a noncombat position are forced to take combat ones because women disproportionately fill the noncombat ones. Men lose opportunities to serve in noncombat roles.

You have yet to address why it is fair for women to disproportionately take job oppotunities frommen in the noncombat roles. Saying that men start wars does not adress the lack of equality in filling noncombat roles.

Stop playing mixing and matching. Answer the question instead of dodging it by asking a question that is moot to the point at hand.

Whatever the reasons for asking for equality it does not give one the right to exceed equality. So, the myriad of reasons leading up to sexism against women does not give women the right to exceed equality in the filling of noncombat roles.

News flash.
Most hunter gatherer societies were (and remain so for the few remaining ones) very egalitarian. So, with respect to the more primitive societies I am not sure what you are referring to.

But, I will bite anyway.
Power games that affected both sexes?
I assure you that women have been playing power games with men and manipulating them even more deftly since women were often not in a position of physical power. It is human nature. With respect to manipulationand power games it has always been a two way street.

The problem is once again that you are arguing where the original sexism grew from and not arguing about what needs to be done now to ensure equality as we overcome these problems. This is a misdirection.

Step one, list and address the causes of sexism against women.
Step two, seek to overcome these problems.
Step three, in the process of overcoming these problems it is questioned as to whether or not equality has been exceeded in some instances.
Following step three with a statement that women try to overcome these sexist restraints because men were the source of the restraint does not address whether or not something has been exceeded and what (if anything) should be done about it.
This is simply a dodge to answering the question and topic at hand.

Are you deliberately being a forum troll?

First, stop the bullshit about me not minding if my sisters get blown up. No one wants their brothers blown up either. Moot point and it is just flaming.

The point is that you are not disagreeing because you are dodging the question by going blah blah blah men start wars and men start sexism.

The question is about equality and not about what you like or want to see with people getting blown up or not blown up. Remember, this is a subforum about feminism.

Feminism is about equality for all. It is that women are equal to men. So, is it equality for women not to be included in the frontline combat troops?

 

Try any of the issues you've raised and then refused to defend. How about why you insist on aligning all of each sex together in two separate collectives? Do you believe in individual responsibility for anything, or must everyone answer for the crimes of everyone else of their sex?