Kaim_Fabuyashi
Prepare Yourself
We get erections and can pee while standing.
Women get huge milk jugs and child birth.
Men: 1 | Women: 0
SI, let me tell you that you sir are a bucket of win. You have been sigged twice. XD
~Kaim
We get erections and can pee while standing.
Women get huge milk jugs and child birth.
Men: 1 | Women: 0
We get erections and can pee while standing.
Women get huge milk jugs and child birth.
Men: 1 | Women: 0
I'm not arguing against this specifically but if they cannot physically use a gun, or physically do a set task, I'm not going to buy them doing it 'just because it's fair'. There are plenty of heavy machine/assault guns and tough recoil that not even the average male couldn't handle.My precise view is that in the event a woman can meet the logical physical requirements laid out by the military for a given role, then she can serve in it, it's pretty hard to argue against this.
People like Jhonny of course try to play the sex card and may try to use it as justification, but first of all since when did the military cater to the wishes and comfortability of its soldiers? And second of all, just because women (or gays) may negatively affect men, why is it that they are punished (and the military as whole for that matter (as an example, discharges under DADT were over 1,000 before 9/11 and have dropped significantly since)) because of something out of their control?
Like I said, if they have the ability to serve, then they can obviously have a positive effect on our military.
Answer: The same place you put the men. People just need to get over co-ed issues and just bunk in the same room. It really isn't that big of an issue unless you think women have cooties or men are so uncontrollable that everyone will end up pregnant."Where will we put the women?"
Depends. How many were actually in a crossfire? post traumatic stress has more to do with being involved in the actual warfare.. which I doubt nurses were.How many females do you see with post traumatic stress disorder from Vietnam? Sure they were only nurses then, but they witnessed just as much as the men.
men are so uncontrollable that everyone will end up pregnant.
If that's the case, then only people without families, lovers back home, or even really crushes should be allowed in wars. If they have any sort of connections then its going to hold them back. Unfortunately, they did this at one point (limiting to dependantless soldiers) and people countered it by running off and getting married and having kids just to avoid drafting. >.< Though I feel the same about military women getting pregnant, that should NOT be allowed. The same as people were saying that 'glamor queens' shouldn't be soldiers, the same goes for would be mothers. True, not all women are suited for war, but those who AREN'T glamor queens, mommies or faint at the sight of a mouse/blood types shouldn't be kept out of the better jobs.I object to them living in the exact same room. It has nothing to do with cooties. Romantic interest gets in the way of psychologically developing a killing machine (that is what a soldier is).
I can't think of their names at the moment, but there WERE several notable women nurses who helped soldiers right out in the line of fire. They treated the injured where they laid and even the ones who were off on the sidelines had to see all the gore and hear the screams of those tortured men. How about during the civil war when they only had whiskey as an anesthetic and people screamed horribly while limbs were amputated, often causing them to die from their very treatment?! That's sick and could definantely mess people up psychologically, and yet if women are good enough to witness and directly interact with that, why are they not good enough to do something arguably less graphic and delicate like infantry?Depends. How many were actually in a crossfire? post traumatic stress has more to do with being involved in the actual warfare.. which I doubt nurses were.
No, because they are isolated and thus it doesn't matter. They have little contact back home.If that's the case, then only people without families, lovers back home, or even really crushes should be allowed in wars.
I'm not sure if that's a good sample size and even then, how are you so sure they didn't get the disorder?I can't think of their names at the moment, but there WERE several notable women nurses who helped soldiers right out in the line of fire.
I'm not arguing against this specifically but if they cannot physically use a gun, or physically do a set task, I'm not going to buy them doing it 'just because it's fair'.
She would be tortured, have her human rights abused and probably killed.
Men suffer that as well. It's called risk and is prelevant in war.
wait are you guys arguing over the fact that women cant be active in the military? cuz if ya are thats kinda stupid i mean think about what would happen to a women if she were captured
How about military forces from countries that clearly have them?in some New Guinea(sp?)
How about military forces from countries that clearly have them?