It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tamahu


"It is stupid to militarize women, to force them to march with drums and flags through the streets of cities as if they were males. Women must be fully feminine, and men must be fully masculine.

"The intermediate sex, homosexuality, is the outcome of degeneration and barbarism."

- Samael Aun Weor




"It is essential for the new generations to become completely cognizant about what savagery and war are.

"Enmity and war in all of its aspects must be comprehended in depth at schools, colleges, and universities.

"The new generations must comprehend that old people—based on their rancid and torpid ideas—always sacrifice the youngsters; yes, old people take the youngsters like oxen into the slaughterhouse.

"Youngsters must not allow themselves to be convinced by the militarist propaganda nor by the old people’s warmonger reasoning, because one form of reasoning opposes another, and one opinion opposes another opinion, yet the truth about war has nothing to do with reasoning or opinions.

"Old people have thousands of justifications for war and sending the youngsters to the slaughter."

- Samael Aun Weor




edit on 15-1-2011 by Tamahu because: edited quote


forget nwo controll what is your belief of women in general? are you slipping again, with gnostic sexual BIASES?




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by simples
 


That is pretty bad. But it wasn't the woman's fault that she was carried out by the male. It was the guy's fault. You said it yourself that you didn't think that was right. From what you're telling me, you would've rather had your buddy taken out first. I'm sure the injured female would have the same mindset.

It won't be an easy or quick transition. Then again, neither was the perception of women voting, women working in a time that was typically a male dominated industry, women smoking in public during a time when it was an apparent felony for them to smoke, etc. It's a gradual transition that has to start somewhere.

People who are serving on the front lines aren't going to be dainty little pansies that need to be coddled, male or female, each person serving will want to stick to the chain of command, will want the person who is severely injured to receive treatment first, etc, so some sort of training will have to be undertaken to accompany this transition. But the starting point has to be somewhere.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by gluetrap
 


Men and women both stink but they stink differently. Men have more of a putrid garbage stench where women have that disgusting horrible rotten fish stench. Depending on the degree of the stench either will force you to uncontrollably vomit.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rexusdiablos
It's always amazed me that women get exempted from the military due to men's inability to remain focus and disciplined in the presence of women.

Male attitudes and discipline is the problem, not women.


...agreed...

...misogynist culture is the culprit, imo... it creates males who must dominate to feel like a man, which really translates to massive insecurities about their masculinity... the females who support misogyny are weak willed and will, more than likely, raise weak minded offspring who will continue the male superiority insanity...

...females should be allowed down every avenue a male is... there should no special qualifying tests for females entering the military... same test, same treatment, regardless of gender...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


yes it wasnt the womans fault im not saying that, but why put that decision in front of a male when that decision didnt have to be there if she wasnt there.

do you realy think a bit of training can really overturn a males natural human instinct?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
If women want to go to combat let them go to combat. There is really no need for the assumption of integration. There could be all female companies and all male companies in all combat fields. There is no reason to not have all female submarines either. And for the integrated units, that's fine too, it will allow more males to have access to preferential duty either out of the theater of war or in shore duty. The equal responsibility of registering for the draft in order to get student loans can then be applied as well.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


They should be integrated into all professional sports as well. The time for this exception is long past due.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by simples
 


I believe that training and natural progression can overturn an antiquated social perception, at least how it is in the context of being within the military.

I'm personally protective of females. But I also believe that they should be treated as equals, especially when they want to be treated as equals. Theapache kid mentioned "women tend to be loving and nurturing, more so than men so lets not ruin it, please, some one has to be around to remind us how to love and care, if we all become killers it's over." However, women who want to serve on the front lines probably have a different type of mindset on the killing field than wanting to love and care, and stay at home baking delicious baked treats for hubby.

There is a delicate balance between aggression and compassion that needs to be found individually within each person. I don't understand why men always have be aggressive and women always have to be the delicate flower (especially when they don't want to be.) In my eyes, what's natural is that each person can have a balanced blend of aggression and compassion, and imo I would rather have people serving that understand that and exhibit that rather than a cold-blooded killing machine.
edit on 15-1-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
It always seemed odd that at home a woman cannot face a drunk husband. Women's Olympic hockey practices against boy midget leagues. Female boxers are a joke and would be torn apart in a ring by a male. So how can it be that once a woman is in uniform, she can take any enemy soldier under any conditions; hand to hand, knives, and win. No problem. Taliban fighters must die of shame to be whipped by girls.
This being the case, all women should be drafted and serve in combat as a method of defeating domestic violence.
I say like an earlier poster. Men should stay at home for once. Gays and girls want to fight, demand to fight, let them go.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
This is based on the 11 years of service I have had which has included combat arms and combat support.

Among the MP Corps there are some women who can shoot expert and max their PT scores.
They have the ability to lead fireteams and excel in combatives. We did weekly 10-15k ruck marches that they were able to do with no problem. They are not petitie or fragile. Some of them often compete in marathons and triathlons.

There are not many of them, but they do exist.

I would have no problem fighting along side a woman like that.

The problem is there arn't many like that. Most of the females we had were overweight, petite, barely shot marksman, and often fell out of ruck marches.

As long as standards are not lowered and the women are held to the same standard as men, then I don't care where they serve. They have to meet the standards, no ifs ands or buts. Women in a combat unit should take the same PT test as the males, no exceptions. They have to be able to function as machinegunners, meaning able to carry M249s or M240s, along with body armor and 30lb rucks. If on tanks, they have to be able to load Sabot and HEAT rounds in 7 seconds or less. No ifs ands or buts, period.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Anyone who believes that all women are 'delicate nurturing flowers' is either naive or isn't a woman.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
If an individual can perform to the expectations of the military,there's no reason to deny them from serving their country. As long as women in active combat roles are held to the same standards as men, I really don't see much of a problem with this.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by EssenSieMich
 


Agreed. But tell that to the people who are treating them as if they were.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


Women should serve in combat only when men have menstrual cycles, can become impregnated, and bear and deliver a child. In the meantime, the idea is plainly unnecessary. NO to such thinking.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Hmm.

a woman POW whom isn't half bad looking...not a good result.

I have no philosophical argument against it, but my realist view of the world...well, we aren't going into civil places to play war now, are we...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


I know. I'm a man but I really have to say that the extreme majority of men are a bunch of completely clueless stupid club thumping morons. That's why even your average moronic woman can so easily manipulate them. On the other hand it really makes it easier for guys like me to always have the hottest women so it does have it's advantage.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LiteraryOneTwo
 


Extreme athletic activity, comparable to combat arms PT, in women will often halt the menstrual cycle and can even render women infertile. Its common among female athletes.

So the issues you raise wouldn't be such an issue.

On the other hand, I can imagine a number of women will have issues with infertility.

Its a sacrifice they will have to make.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
Originally posted by rexusdiablos


...misogynist culture is the culprit, imo... it creates males who must dominate to feel like a man, which really translates to massive insecurities about their masculinity... the females who support misogyny are weak willed and will, more than likely, raise weak minded offspring who will continue the male superiority insanity...


Feminism is for the weak-minded, insecure women who have a chip on their shoulder due to an absent/abusive father or some other issue with a certain male. It's either insecurity or blatant envy that prompts feminists to push this ridiculous, unrealistic "equality" agenda. Denying the physical, mental, and emotional differences in males and females only makes you look foolish. I could never fathom why some women have such a problem with not being as well-suited for certain things as men. Why do you feel like you have to prove that you're not different from men? It's simply insecurity...an inferiority complex. What's wrong femininity and the things that women are better suited for? Why do you feel all masculine traits are superior?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
The military should set a standard for any person, be they male or female, to serve on the front lines. If the person can do everything required, then they should not be preempted from serving. This is the 21st century! I thought "equality" was established like a 100 years ago!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimplyGord
It always seemed odd that at home a woman cannot face a drunk husband. Women's Olympic hockey practices against boy midget leagues. Female boxers are a joke and would be torn apart in a ring by a male. So how can it be that once a woman is in uniform, she can take any enemy soldier under any conditions; hand to hand, knives, and win. No problem.


Not every man could defeat everyone either. Let's say you were a boxer and the ref knew you would get your booty (yeah I said it) kicked by the other guy.... Should he be allowed to tell you you're not allowed to fight because you won't win? I think you're kind of missing the point... The point is if they are deemed qualified and they want to do it, it should be their choice... Do you want someone telling you you're not allowed to do something you're qualified for just because they don't want you to?




top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join