Where do you stand in relation to the tyrant?
It is also clear where you stand.
He is a tyrant, a dictator, and a thug.
It is also clear where you stand.
By pretending you don't know his name? If you disagree, fine. But what good does not saying his name do even for your cause? I just don't understand it...
I don''t understand your question, sorry.
Males and females are not the same and trying to make them so is faintly ridiculous.
On the whole...and there are always exceptions to everything....men are more suited/better at combat than women. Likewise, women are generally more adept at some things than men are.
I am not going to argue exceptions, I am speaking of generally.
If brute strength is needed then generally speaking men have more of it than women do. Do you think otherwise?
Exactly. If women want to join the military then that's fine but they are not 'equal' to men in the scenario such as you suggest.
Also isn't a captive woman more 'interesting' to an enemy than a male one would be? That becomes a liability surely.
ALSO
whilst we're on the subject, I don't like the fact of women going off to a war zone and leaving a baby or young dependent child behind. One or the other...miltary career on the front line or caring for your offspring.Where are women currently excluded? Infantry, Armor, maybe Artillery. All other fields are open to women. The purpose of the combat arms is to close with and destroy the enemy. The presence of women in the combat arms will change the nature of those arms. One-third of the men will hate the women. One-third will put protecting the women over accomplishing the mission and one-third will just want to get laid.
There will be a decline in the standards. We already have significantly different physical readiness standards for men and women. Not all men can withstand the rigors of combat. Way fewer women can.
The purpose of this move is to further sissify/feminize the military.
There will be a decline in the standards. We already have significantly different physical readiness standards for men and women. Not all men can withstand the rigors of combat. Way fewer women can.
The purpose of this move is to further sissify/feminize the military.
I agree with almost everything you said. I don't think the move is meant to feminize or sissify the military but rather to pander to women who are not content with their own gender but seek to 'prove' something or other.
There are 2 main motivations for this move that some might not be considering.
1. Women have been pushing for this for years and with the numbers they now have in the military, the DoD buckled under political pressure.
2. Women, due the the nature of the wars we're fighting atm, are already finding themselves in combat situations. The military has ignored this technically unauthorized situation in recognition of battlefield reality (namely you can't keep women off the front line when there is no front line). By changing the regulations, women can now fight without their COs having to worry about some sexist pencil pusher goring after them on a technicality.
1. Women have been pushing for this for years and with the numbers they now have in the military, the DoD buckled under political pressure.
2. Women, due the the nature of the wars we're fighting atm, are already finding themselves in combat situations. The military has ignored this technically unauthorized situation in recognition of battlefield reality (namely you can't keep women off the front line when there is no front line). By changing the regulations, women can now fight without their COs having to worry about some sexist pencil pusher goring after them on a technicality.
To sissify the Military
With the exception of the combat arms all fields are open to women. As a commander of a military intelligence company I had quite a few women in my company. They were among the very best at every job they did. But most did not have the upper body strength that men do. Military units when they move have to be torn down and when they stop have to be set up. The tasks involved require heavy manual labor. All of the women did what they could. Having women in the unit meant the men did double duty on set up and tear down.
I would not have given them up for anything. They did their jobs, on average, better than the men. But they were not able to handle the rigors of life in the field the way the men did.
You missed the actual motive. Liberals believe that the military is dangerous. Liberals hate the military and they hate that the kinds of people who voluntarily join have very little use for liberals and liberalism.
With the exception of the combat arms all fields are open to women. As a commander of a military intelligence company I had quite a few women in my company. They were among the very best at every job they did. But most did not have the upper body strength that men do. Military units when they move have to be torn down and when they stop have to be set up. The tasks involved require heavy manual labor. All of the women did what they could. Having women in the unit meant the men did double duty on set up and tear down.
I would not have given them up for anything. They did their jobs, on average, better than the men. But they were not able to handle the rigors of life in the field the way the men did.
Do you believe that just because there is no active draft today there will never again be one? Are you familiar with the Selective Service? Do you know that you must register (essentially for the draft)?
If this stands then men and women will be drafted together. I hope that you too, will be drafted and fight alongside the women.
I can only hope (though it is unlikely), that through some uncommon synaptic connection you actually understand my position was clearly pointing out the situations where a woman in combat might be less than ideal. Unless I misunderstand your comment, you are wishing me to be placed in the very position I explained would be unacceptable.
Perhaps a bit of scrolling and reading would be beneficial.
I'll even save you the effort:
Last edited:
The draft is redundant anyway, every male citizen between 17 and 47 is militia already.
Beneficial things
Despite your protest of innocence this is what I actually responded to. You wrote, "I would point out your own reply
So...what if the male of our species has advantages in a situation where brute strength is important?"
Sanctimony is an ugly thing. I assumed your position had "evolved".
Perhaps a bit of soul searching would be beneficial.
Despite your protest of innocence this is what I actually responded to. You wrote, "I would point out your own reply
So...what if the male of our species has advantages in a situation where brute strength is important?"
Sanctimony is an ugly thing. I assumed your position had "evolved".
Perhaps a bit of soul searching would be beneficial.
Similar threads
