Should Women be allowed to fight in the millitary?

I don't care if its a woman, a gay man or a 19 year old healthy heterosexual male. Anybody stupid enough to want to die should be allowed to do so.

I really can't understand why someone who is NOT expected to go to fucking war and potentially kill other humans or be killed themselves would be bothered by that. War is the most gruesome, horrible thing on this planet. Anyone that THINKS they want to be a part of one needs to have their head examined.

I like the Hector's quote from the movie Troy:

Oh, and that's sounds heroic to you doesn't it? To die fighting. Tell me little brother, have you ever killed a man?

I've killed men and I've heard them dying and I've watched them dying and there's nothing glorious about it, nothing poetic. You say you're willing to die for love but you know nothing about dying and you know nothing about love!

A quick question: Why are the basic requirements for women less than that of a man? Is this a by-product of years of gender prejudice, or is it some sort of physiological thing?

snap crafter wrote

A quick question: Why are the basic requirements for women less than that of a man? Is this a by-product of years of gender prejudice, or is it some sort of physiological thing?

for the most part women can not meet the male's requirements. An 18 year old male has to do a minimum of 42 pushups in 2 minutes. Most females can't do half of that. I think if they hit double digits they get a congressional medal of honor.

DontBeStupid wrote

I really can't understand why someone who is NOT expected to go to fucking war and potentially kill other humans or be killed themselves would be bothered by that. War is the most gruesome, horrible thing on this planet. Anyone that THINKS they want to be a part of one needs to have their head examined.

Depends on the war. Are you saying there are no battles worth fighting?

Evil_Mage_Ra wrote

Depends on the war. Are you saying there are no battles worth fighting?

Of course there are (not many though). But they will be fought by the people who ARE expected to fight and have an obligation to fight. Even those people should not want to go to war, but do it because they have to.

Anyone that 'wants' to go to war, has never been in one (or is mentally ill).

DontBeStupid wrote

for the most part women can not meet the male's requirements. An 18 year old male has to do a minimum of 42 pushups in 2 minutes. Most females can't do half of that. I think if they hit double digits they get a congressional medal of honor.

Currently it takes me 2 and a half minutes to do 35 situps. (I'm fat.) I know a woman my age that can do 45 situps in that time. I don't think it's a physical thing, I think it's more a socail expectation for women to be weak.

And when it comes up they always act like it's hilarious. "Oh my, I can't lift this 80 lb box, could you help me" *I come and lift it for her with only minimal trouble* "Thanks, gee you're so strong."

Is it one of those games that women play?

And don't they do something different than dead-man pull-ups?

DontBeStupid wrote

Of course there are (not many though). But they will be fought by the people who ARE expected to fight and have an obligation to fight. Even those people should not want to go to war, but do it because they have to.

Anyone that 'wants' to go to war, has never been in one (or is mentally ill).

Makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

About a year ago before I quit dancing I could do 100+ crunches in two minutes. (we never did full situps- they're supposed to be bad for the back) Now I think the numbers dropped a bit, more so due to loss of stamina than strength. But I've never done more than 5 or six push-ups, though I'm working on improving my arm strength (and everything else in preperation to start dancing again.)

PinkFlamingo wrote

About a year ago before I quit dancing I could do 100+ crunches in two minutes. (we never did full situps- they're supposed to be bad for the back) Now I think the numbers dropped a bit, more so due to loss of stamina than strength. But I've never done more than 5 or six push-ups, though I'm working on improving my arm strength (and everything else in preperation to start dancing again.)

Isn't there a move in dancing where you lift your partner? wouldn't you need bicep strength for that?

(And yes, sit-ups are bad for the back, especailly if you're overweight. But if you wear a back brace it takes off a lot of pressure.

Atleast, that's what I gathered. I once threw my back out by doing situps without a brace. Hurt like a motherfucker all day, and some of the next. So much so that I couldn't drive. It eventually went away, but I don't do situps without one anymore.)

I think women should be able to fight, however I don't have a problem with a physical requirement for frontline combat. (Running a 7 minute mile, and doing 10 pullups, or whatever) If a woman is as physically capable as a man of doing combat then they should be allowed to. The truth, of course, is that most women aren't as physically capable at warfare as men.

Cap'n Awesome wrote

I think women should be able to fight, however I don't have a problem with a physical requirement for frontline combat. (Running a 7 minute mile, and doing 10 pullups, or whatever) If a woman is as physically capable as a man of doing combat then they should be allowed to. The truth, of course, is that most women aren't as physically capable at warfare as men.

Maybe PinkFlamingo can give some insight into this but one of the reasons I have heard given is hygiene. When I was in desert storm we went up to a full 4 weeks without returning to the rear to shower. I think the military still has a policy of no more than 3 days without the opportunity to shower for women because they could get infections and stuff.

Is that legit? Do women need to clean more often than men? Could that be a factor?

DontBeStupid wrote

I don't care if its a woman, a gay man or a 19 year old healthy heterosexual male. Anybody stupid enough to want to die should be allowed to do so.

I really can't understand why someone who is NOT expected to go to fucking war and potentially kill other humans or be killed themselves would be bothered by that. War is the most gruesome, horrible thing on this planet. Anyone that THINKS they want to be a part of one needs to have their head examined.

I like the Hector's quote from the movie Troy:

Yes, war is indeed a horrible thing and not glorious. No one should want to die, however, the issue I was trying to bring up was how people can be sextist when it comes to our roles in society...

Baphomet wrote

Yes, war is indeed a horrible thing and not glorious. No one should want to die, however, the issue I was trying to bring up was how people can be sextist when it comes to our roles in society...

sorry, I got that. and I agree with you. My first line was on topic, then i vented from there.

Alright everyone, sorry that I completely butchered the poll... as I've said before, technology isn't exactly my strong point.

Anyways, the issue at hand was not so much "Should we make women fight" it was more "should we allow women to fight if they are just as capable?"

I'm wondering what everyone's reasoning is here.
Like I've said before, it seems to me that a lot of christians are very sextist when it comes to gender roles. A lot of them I've met believe that a women's role is in the home, washing dishes and making babies. The old church I went to was very conservative in this way.

I dunno, it just seems to me that the whole idea of "gender roles", meaning that a women has to be at home, a man has to earn the bacon, these ideas just seem kinda old and outdated to me...

DontBeStupid wrote

I don't care if its a woman, a gay man or a 19 year old healthy heterosexual male. Anybody stupid enough to want to die should be allowed to do so.

I really can't understand why someone who is NOT expected to go to fucking war and potentially kill other humans or be killed themselves would be bothered by that. War is the most gruesome, horrible thing on this planet. Anyone that THINKS they want to be a part of one needs to have their head examined.

You are free today because people better than yourself, who you call "stupid," died defending you or your ancestors. Perhaps they deserve more than your scorn.

Those without swords can still die upon them. Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't. It's been said in thousands of ways already, but I'll leave you what is perhaps the best response:

John Stuart Mill wrote

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice,—is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.