RE: Women in combat

RE: Women in combat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

egern -> RE: Women in combat (2/27/2013 10:35:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: czarski The main concern here is not female physiology, but male psychology. You can't possibly prevent the eternal thing happening again - males competing to impress females. Naturally, there will be the reverse dynamic - women competing to impress men. There will be egos colliding, animosities, jealousies. I don't see much room for the team spirit here. Of course, if you bring a bunch of men and women together and immediately throw them into combat, they all might cooperate quite well - they hadn't had time to develop affections, competition, jealousy. But 99% of soldiers' time isn't combat. Another problem is chivalry. Men will be taking additional risks trying to support their female fellows, no matter how much your prohibit it. I remember the Star Troopers movie by Verhoeven, male and female soldiers fighting, living, bathing together. But the movie is a dystopia. In a culture where offering to carry a heavy bag for a woman is a mandate, you will have male soldiers killed in combat during an unnecessary act of chivalry for a woman. I think you should know that while this is the case for some cultures, not all Western cultures are like that.

egern -> RE: Women in combat (2/27/2013 4:35:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: egern quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Is anyone prepared for the day when a woman is taken prisoner by an enemy force ? I say this policy is PC and not a good for all involved. women suffer a lot during war as it is, at least a bit of protection if in the military? That's not the function of the military, or better put, that's no reason to have wonen there. What I meant was that since women are already there getting shot at, they might as well get the befits too.

GotSteel -> RE: Women in combat (2/27/2013 6:50:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Why precisely, if we are going to put troops into combat, should one gender be excluded from those roles and the danger associated with it? I don't see why anyone who can do the job and wants to do the job should be prevented from doing it. That said I don't think anyone who can't do the job should get it, i.e. I'm apposed to any lowering of standards.

egern -> RE: Women in combat (2/28/2013 2:15:49 AM)
I don't know why anyone would want to be a soldier - making yourself a tool for the politicians, and who trust them? But that is another topic, I guess. If women want to be soldiers, let them. I understand about vets saying they want the next soldier to get their back, but apparently women do that just as anybody else. As some have said, they are already in danger and on the line - being shot at - but without the benefits of a soldier, so it is good that that is now being put in order. In countries where you have the draft, women should also be drafted IMO. During many fights women have fought as well as the men, to defend their country. Underground resistance during wars, revolutions (Ireland, Sound America etc) and made a difference. It is not all about how far you can carry a back pack. Also at least the US army needs help, many soldier are sent out too often and too long, and campaigns are carried out to at large extent by mercenaries, Not marines. That said, there seems to be a problem with rapes in the ranks, which sounds absolutely disgusting.

TAFKAA -> RE: Women in combat (2/28/2013 2:25:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Will this cause the end of western civilization or usher in a new golden age? They need to extend conscription to women as well.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125