- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I keep wondering where all these PC posts keep coming from, then I see that Ontario seems to have the glut of them. Thanks for the Liberals, guys! They‘re doing a bang up job!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
hey Gate_guard. I always wondered where all the red-neck out dated ideas came from... but I see your posts.. and think oh that‘s where they come from.
no offence but not everyone in Onatrio votes Liberal... no one here is posting PC crap... it‘s call common sence. If you have a thing against women keep it to yourself.
no offence but not everyone in Onatrio votes Liberal... no one here is posting PC crap... it‘s call common sence. If you have a thing against women keep it to yourself.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Your right, Radiohead, that wasn‘t very PC of you to imply that rednecks everywhere are sexist, you sure showed me. And why is it that I have to be a redneck to have an opinion against women in the combat arms? Why can‘t I be a city boy born and raised in Vancouver with that opinion?
I don‘t take offence to you stating that not everyone in Ontario voted Liberal. Why would I?
I joined this board to discuss and debate issues, not have everyone agree with me. I‘m quite opinionated, I‘m not ignorant of this fact, but I don‘t tell people in so many words to "shut up" just cause I don‘t agree with them. Very mature.
I‘m going back to my side of the sandbox, you guys aren‘t being nice.
Besides, I don‘t have to talk to you cause according to Duotone your opinion doesn‘t matter cause ya aren‘t in yet.
I don‘t take offence to you stating that not everyone in Ontario voted Liberal. Why would I?
I joined this board to discuss and debate issues, not have everyone agree with me. I‘m quite opinionated, I‘m not ignorant of this fact, but I don‘t tell people in so many words to "shut up" just cause I don‘t agree with them. Very mature.
I‘m going back to my side of the sandbox, you guys aren‘t being nice.
Besides, I don‘t have to talk to you cause according to Duotone your opinion doesn‘t matter cause ya aren‘t in yet.
D
Duotone81
Guest
Gategaurd,
You missed the forest for the trees on that one. In my reply I was not arguing the position of women in combat roles. I read all of MTF‘s posts and he was complaining that everyone misinterpreted his thoughts.
About not having an opinion because he never served, well what I should‘ve said was because he has never served or fought in combat his opinions on the issue have no merit. Ya know what they say about a**holes and opinions eh?
You missed the forest for the trees on that one. In my reply I was not arguing the position of women in combat roles. I read all of MTF‘s posts and he was complaining that everyone misinterpreted his thoughts.
The rape argument is flimsy at best. Before yesturday I never knew it was an issue. So what he‘s really arguing about is he doesn‘t want females in combat roles. That‘s the whole point I was trying to make.
About not having an opinion because he never served, well what I should‘ve said was because he has never served or fought in combat his opinions on the issue have no merit. Ya know what they say about a**holes and opinions eh?
H
humint
Guest
Thanks for trying to debase my line of argument by labelling it "PC".
It‘s not my fault that I‘m aware of, and sensitive to, other people‘s needs -- I guess I got a lot of unconditional love from my parents when I was a kid. That sort of thing happens in Ontario, ya know!??!
But, it‘s all OK, I do forgive you. I know being an ignorant redneck is not your fault.
It‘s not my fault that I‘m aware of, and sensitive to, other people‘s needs -- I guess I got a lot of unconditional love from my parents when I was a kid. That sort of thing happens in Ontario, ya know!??!
But, it‘s all OK, I do forgive you. I know being an ignorant redneck is not your fault.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
humint,
I am amazed at the blatant disregard for logic in your post. I am stunned. I had no idea that there was a direct correlation between being loved as a child and political correctness. And then to insinuate that Ontario is the birthplace of perfect parenting, both are revelations of epiphany like proportions to my ignorant redneck existence. Thank you for giving me an inside look at the illogical thought process of the Liberals.
I am amazed at the blatant disregard for logic in your post. I am stunned. I had no idea that there was a direct correlation between being loved as a child and political correctness. And then to insinuate that Ontario is the birthplace of perfect parenting, both are revelations of epiphany like proportions to my ignorant redneck existence. Thank you for giving me an inside look at the illogical thought process of the Liberals.
W
WINDWOLF
Guest
The longer this thread goes,the better
understanding i have of the younger
(mens?) attitude about the ladies.
Keep it going guys,i am feeling more & more
mature as the days go by.
Enjoy. LOL
understanding i have of the younger
(mens?) attitude about the ladies.
Keep it going guys,i am feeling more & more
mature as the days go by.
Enjoy. LOL
P
PilotGal
Guest
Edit note: I just realized that people had "agreed" to not post in this topic anymore, so I‘m sorry if I started up the argument again. Don‘t feel obliged to reply. LOL. I just expressed my views. 
Ummmmmm, okay, this is a rather interesting topic...
I think women should be treated the same way as men are, whether in times of peace or war. I mean, WTF is the point in having women in the infantry and not letting them go and fight on the battlefield? It‘s like telling them they can be trained and be in the infantry unit, but they still get to sit at home during the war. It‘s illogical. If you‘re not gonna allow women to fight on the battlefield during war, don‘t let them into the army in the first place. Both are sexist, but the former one is even more ridiculous. It just pisses me off when people say that women should be allowed to be trained and all that, but they shouldn‘t be allowed to fight.
At the point when a woman enters the army, she knows the dangers she would be facing in time of war. She‘s not a kid! I mean, just by saying that women should not be allowed to fight, you‘re treating us like children! :rage: And why is it worse if a woman is raped than if a man is raped? I mean, geez. It‘s the same thing. It‘s even worse in men‘s case, because of all the humiliation and repression it brings to the man with it.
I am a woman, and I want to have the right to choose what to do with my life. If I choose to die for my country, I should have the right to go and do it. Just because a small group of women in the army are concerned with being raped doesn‘t mean that you should disallow women to go and fight on the battlefield. So if a group of men come forward with such concerns too, your army basically goes down. LOL! Being in the military has risks, and if you‘re not up to the challenge, then too bad, you can always leave. But don‘t take others‘ rights away just cos you can‘t do something. That‘s one of the things I hate - and it‘s also in the psychology of some (if not most) men in the army - they don‘t like the fact that a woman might be considered as tough or even tougher than them.
It‘s not a competition, guys, it‘s cooperation. The army is teamwork, not individual work.
And don‘t tell me what I can do and what I can‘t do. Don‘t stereotype me and other women - I‘ve fought against 6 men at the same time, and they were all taller and bigger than me. And I was ABLE to fight them. So don‘t tell us that we are fragile and not suitable for fighting on the battlefield.
As to what pertains to rape:
"The reason was because they know that during war and in countries like Afghanistan and other middle eastern countries,when women are caught they are often raped over and over again."
Ummm, are you implying that middle eastern countries only do that? If I am not mistaken, POW rape happens all over the world. It has happened in Serbia, by Christians, it has happened in Lebanon during the civil war, it has happened in Vietnam, it has happened in all wars. You just have to read case studies on it. Fact is, everyone does it - Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, Arabs, Serbs, etc. God knows how much brutality POW during WWI and WWII have endured, including rape. And just for the record, the percentage of men raped is higher than the percentage of women raped during wars, taken proportionally, of course. I could cite a dozen sources to prove that. It‘s a form of debasement and humiliation, not of sexual desire. LOL. It‘s a form of spreading fear and terror.
Get your facts straight. Men and women are equal. Ergo, they should both be given equal chances and the same choices. Not to mention, there should be compulsary military service for everyone over the age of 18, because what happens during war is that all the men are drafted, and women are not, because they are considered to be slower learners. So you end up with an imbalance - all men leave for war, women stay at home... If women were also drafted, you wouldn‘t have to draft as many men as you do, and there would be less widows left at home with no income and no means of supporting themselves. As for a fair system of drafting, that‘s not the issue here, but it can be done.
Women are as strong as some men. Just because most women are not interested in joining the army doesn‘t mean that you should prevent other women from joining too, does it?
D.
Ummmmmm, okay, this is a rather interesting topic...
I think women should be treated the same way as men are, whether in times of peace or war. I mean, WTF is the point in having women in the infantry and not letting them go and fight on the battlefield? It‘s like telling them they can be trained and be in the infantry unit, but they still get to sit at home during the war. It‘s illogical. If you‘re not gonna allow women to fight on the battlefield during war, don‘t let them into the army in the first place. Both are sexist, but the former one is even more ridiculous. It just pisses me off when people say that women should be allowed to be trained and all that, but they shouldn‘t be allowed to fight.
At the point when a woman enters the army, she knows the dangers she would be facing in time of war. She‘s not a kid! I mean, just by saying that women should not be allowed to fight, you‘re treating us like children! :rage: And why is it worse if a woman is raped than if a man is raped? I mean, geez. It‘s the same thing. It‘s even worse in men‘s case, because of all the humiliation and repression it brings to the man with it.
I am a woman, and I want to have the right to choose what to do with my life. If I choose to die for my country, I should have the right to go and do it. Just because a small group of women in the army are concerned with being raped doesn‘t mean that you should disallow women to go and fight on the battlefield. So if a group of men come forward with such concerns too, your army basically goes down. LOL! Being in the military has risks, and if you‘re not up to the challenge, then too bad, you can always leave. But don‘t take others‘ rights away just cos you can‘t do something. That‘s one of the things I hate - and it‘s also in the psychology of some (if not most) men in the army - they don‘t like the fact that a woman might be considered as tough or even tougher than them.
It‘s not a competition, guys, it‘s cooperation. The army is teamwork, not individual work. And don‘t tell me what I can do and what I can‘t do. Don‘t stereotype me and other women - I‘ve fought against 6 men at the same time, and they were all taller and bigger than me. And I was ABLE to fight them. So don‘t tell us that we are fragile and not suitable for fighting on the battlefield.
As to what pertains to rape:
"The reason was because they know that during war and in countries like Afghanistan and other middle eastern countries,when women are caught they are often raped over and over again."
Ummm, are you implying that middle eastern countries only do that? If I am not mistaken, POW rape happens all over the world. It has happened in Serbia, by Christians, it has happened in Lebanon during the civil war, it has happened in Vietnam, it has happened in all wars. You just have to read case studies on it. Fact is, everyone does it - Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, Arabs, Serbs, etc. God knows how much brutality POW during WWI and WWII have endured, including rape. And just for the record, the percentage of men raped is higher than the percentage of women raped during wars, taken proportionally, of course. I could cite a dozen sources to prove that. It‘s a form of debasement and humiliation, not of sexual desire. LOL. It‘s a form of spreading fear and terror.
Get your facts straight. Men and women are equal. Ergo, they should both be given equal chances and the same choices. Not to mention, there should be compulsary military service for everyone over the age of 18, because what happens during war is that all the men are drafted, and women are not, because they are considered to be slower learners. So you end up with an imbalance - all men leave for war, women stay at home... If women were also drafted, you wouldn‘t have to draft as many men as you do, and there would be less widows left at home with no income and no means of supporting themselves. As for a fair system of drafting, that‘s not the issue here, but it can be done.
Women are as strong as some men. Just because most women are not interested in joining the army doesn‘t mean that you should prevent other women from joining too, does it?
D.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,719
- Points
- 1,160
"Get your facts straight. Men and women are equal"
If that were true then there would be one standard for physical fitness and not two.
Men and women are not equil. I am not saying one is better then the other but theres obvious differences both physically and psychologically.
You can‘t demand equil rights but have special bennifits or like i said different standards because thats simply not being "equil".
I‘m for women in the army 100%. IT causes certian problems but like it was said, this isn‘t something that will change so of us whom don‘t like it have to accept it. I think what we do need though is to have one standard. Right there i believe we would do away with a large issue of the problem.
If that were true then there would be one standard for physical fitness and not two.
Men and women are not equil. I am not saying one is better then the other but theres obvious differences both physically and psychologically.
You can‘t demand equil rights but have special bennifits or like i said different standards because thats simply not being "equil".
I‘m for women in the army 100%. IT causes certian problems but like it was said, this isn‘t something that will change so of us whom don‘t like it have to accept it. I think what we do need though is to have one standard. Right there i believe we would do away with a large issue of the problem.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
To Humint, Radiohead, and Duotone, I apologize for my sarcastic, and at times rude, comments. I‘ll try to keep my posts focused and refrain from getting into immature "pissing contests."
Okay, I‘ve already provided my point of view so I won‘t waste space repeating it. To further the discussion though, if equality is the goal, should we not integrate everything? Why have mens and womens sports? I think that the infantry is probably one of the most testosterone fueled occupations in the world and if that can be integrated shouldn‘t everything else be as well?
Okay, I‘ve already provided my point of view so I won‘t waste space repeating it. To further the discussion though, if equality is the goal, should we not integrate everything? Why have mens and womens sports? I think that the infantry is probably one of the most testosterone fueled occupations in the world and if that can be integrated shouldn‘t everything else be as well?
D
deathwing5
Guest
lol you really want to further the discussion? This really is an endless debate. So why dont we allow everyone into war and become equal for god sakes. Men, women, gays, dogs, cats.
P
PilotGal
Guest
Ghost778,
Men and women are equal in their rights to rights. They are not equal in the sense that they are the same physically or psychologically, but in the sense that neither man is superior to woman, nor woman is superior to man. In other words, they are both human beings, and therefore, on the same level.
And like I said, I hate the "special consideration" thing. We are equal to men, therefore we too should be drafted if there is a war. I really dislike women who demand rights and bitch, and then when time comes, they say they are women, and hence "feeble" and "fragile" and therefore should have special treatment and considerations. That‘s just BS. It‘s like affirmative action - trying to achieve justice by injustice. Hmmmmm...
And I also support gays in the army.
D.
Men and women are equal in their rights to rights.
They are not equal in the sense that they are the same physically or psychologically, but in the sense that neither man is superior to woman, nor woman is superior to man. In other words, they are both human beings, and therefore, on the same level. And like I said, I hate the "special consideration" thing. We are equal to men, therefore we too should be drafted if there is a war. I really dislike women who demand rights and bitch, and then when time comes, they say they are women, and hence "feeble" and "fragile" and therefore should have special treatment and considerations. That‘s just BS. It‘s like affirmative action - trying to achieve justice by injustice. Hmmmmm...
And I also support gays in the army.
D.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,719
- Points
- 1,160
Homosexuals have been in the army (combat arms) since the dawn of time though, no big deal.
I know what you mean about everyone should be given a fair chance.
Do you think it‘s wise though, if given the option, to push for equil rights across the board when in the end it may weaken or compromise the ability of our army? Everything would be equil but our ability to perform would seriously suffer. (Im not saying this is the case, just a hypothetical question). Just say having females in the infantry would, in fact, cause considerable problems and in the end we would be far less effective then if it was all males. Do you think it‘s more important that females get a chance to be in the infantry regardless or do you think our state as a fighting force is more important?
I know what you mean about everyone should be given a fair chance.
Do you think it‘s wise though, if given the option, to push for equil rights across the board when in the end it may weaken or compromise the ability of our army? Everything would be equil but our ability to perform would seriously suffer. (Im not saying this is the case, just a hypothetical question). Just say having females in the infantry would, in fact, cause considerable problems and in the end we would be far less effective then if it was all males. Do you think it‘s more important that females get a chance to be in the infantry regardless or do you think our state as a fighting force is more important?
D
Duotone81
Guest
Gate_Guard,
No apology needed for this guy. Nothing wrong with the occasional pissing contest as long as it‘s not into the wind eh!
No apology needed for this guy. Nothing wrong with the occasional pissing contest as long as it‘s not into the wind eh!
P
PilotGal
Guest
No, I don‘t think having females in the army (esp. infantry) would lower the efficiency and strenght of the army. Of course, not all females would be admitted. There would be certain qualifications, etc., just like in the case of males. I don‘t see why it should be different. There are physically weak men out there, and they would not be able to get into the infantry, etc. Same with females. You filter out the weak, and take in the strong. As simple as that. But you don‘t go around preventing females from joining, even if they ARE "weaker" than males. You increase the standards so as not to let "weak" women in - cos you know they will crumble once on the battlefield, so you don‘t want them in there.
And even if women in the army are proven to be weaker than men, I‘m sure you can‘t apply that general thing on EACH and EVERY particular woman in the army. Just like average age of a group does not apply to every single person in that group. There are women who are strong and able to make it and succeed, and it‘s up to the trainers to find who‘s good and who‘s not, and who‘s capable of surviving it and who‘s not.
Another question for those of you who are in the Army, etc. Are gays kicked out of the army if they are discovered to be gay? Never found the answer to that, just curious.
D.
And even if women in the army are proven to be weaker than men, I‘m sure you can‘t apply that general thing on EACH and EVERY particular woman in the army. Just like average age of a group does not apply to every single person in that group. There are women who are strong and able to make it and succeed, and it‘s up to the trainers to find who‘s good and who‘s not, and who‘s capable of surviving it and who‘s not.
Another question for those of you who are in the Army, etc. Are gays kicked out of the army if they are discovered to be gay? Never found the answer to that, just curious.
D.
R
Ruthless4Life
Guest
As far as I know, all western countries do not put females into the front lines as the main fighing force, and this is done for a reason.
It‘s not really physical nor mental, but it‘s about society and the general public, not just a few women that think how they should have a right to be on the battlefield (and leave out the dramatic dying part - as far as dying for your country, it‘s better now die at all - dying doesn‘t help anyone).
If women that are in the infantry are allowed onto the battlefield to engage the enemy, this means that women will be used in the deployment either they like it or not. If women have a choice to either be deployed or not, this would not be fair to the men either.
The public probably wouldn‘t see this as giving a right for women to fight, but the government using women to fight - which the government may be criticized by the general public and the rest of the world. I highly doubt the government will ever do this anytime soon and put their next election campaign in jeopardy.
But at the end, you can always argue that women have a choice to join the infantry in the Canadian army and there would be no point if they are trained for nothing. BUT you have to realize that women HAVE DIFFERENT FITNESS STANDARDS as men. This implies that generally women are not trained to be as fit as men. If this is a case, I‘d rather put my life into the man next to me than the women.
The bottom line is, if women ever want to have the same opportunities as men, they better be equally fit and qualified.
With the current CF regulations right now, women should not be on the battlefield. It‘s not about equality. It‘s about life and death we‘re talking about here.
Having females as the main fighting force may work in the future, but at the moment, our society is NOT READY for it yet. The transition is just too big of a change.
It‘s not really physical nor mental, but it‘s about society and the general public, not just a few women that think how they should have a right to be on the battlefield (and leave out the dramatic dying part - as far as dying for your country, it‘s better now die at all - dying doesn‘t help anyone).
If women that are in the infantry are allowed onto the battlefield to engage the enemy, this means that women will be used in the deployment either they like it or not. If women have a choice to either be deployed or not, this would not be fair to the men either.
The public probably wouldn‘t see this as giving a right for women to fight, but the government using women to fight - which the government may be criticized by the general public and the rest of the world. I highly doubt the government will ever do this anytime soon and put their next election campaign in jeopardy.
But at the end, you can always argue that women have a choice to join the infantry in the Canadian army and there would be no point if they are trained for nothing. BUT you have to realize that women HAVE DIFFERENT FITNESS STANDARDS as men. This implies that generally women are not trained to be as fit as men. If this is a case, I‘d rather put my life into the man next to me than the women.
The bottom line is, if women ever want to have the same opportunities as men, they better be equally fit and qualified.
With the current CF regulations right now, women should not be on the battlefield. It‘s not about equality. It‘s about life and death we‘re talking about here.
Having females as the main fighting force may work in the future, but at the moment, our society is NOT READY for it yet. The transition is just too big of a change.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,719
- Points
- 1,160
Pilotgal you missed my point. I was being hypothetical saying that *if* if was found that females reduced the combat efficency of the army, is it more important to have their individual rights and let them in anyways or have the army in top condition for lack of a better word. I‘m not saying females would make it weak at all, just playing devils advocate. Just trying to see what you think is more important. The individual or group.
It‘s not always about actual physical strenght. We all know some women out there can easily out perform their male peers. I think a lot of people get upset when individuals, whatever gender, get catered to which unfortinuatly happens to females a lot, even if they don‘t want it. I‘ve seen people try and give females special treatment much to their dismay because they knew how it made them look.
Offically homosexuals won‘t be singled out at all. They might be subjected to discrimination from their peers though which is natural. (Just like famales or some races. It‘s not right but it‘s how it is) For someone who knows "more then we think" about the military i‘m surprised you are in the black about this
Canada, especially the military, is all about human rights and catering to individuals so we look as politically correct as possible. For a country thats decriminalizing pot and allowing gay marrages how could the army possible kick someone out of the army for being gay?
It‘s not always about actual physical strenght. We all know some women out there can easily out perform their male peers. I think a lot of people get upset when individuals, whatever gender, get catered to which unfortinuatly happens to females a lot, even if they don‘t want it. I‘ve seen people try and give females special treatment much to their dismay because they knew how it made them look.
Offically homosexuals won‘t be singled out at all. They might be subjected to discrimination from their peers though which is natural. (Just like famales or some races. It‘s not right but it‘s how it is) For someone who knows "more then we think" about the military i‘m surprised you are in the black about this
Canada, especially the military, is all about human rights and catering to individuals so we look as politically correct as possible. For a country thats decriminalizing pot and allowing gay marrages how could the army possible kick someone out of the army for being gay?
C
Cycophant
Guest
One other small thing I would like to add to the discussion:
I decided to do an unofficial survey of some females. Out of the 15 or so that I talked to, only 3 said that they had the capacity to kill, they thought.
The rest all said the same thing (that I fully agree with). A majority of women seem to have a natural instinct to preserve human life. Perhaps it has something to do with the ability of females to give life, via birth. Perhaps its something more scientific like a lack of testosterone. I don‘t know. But there does seem to be a majority out there that could not do it. Yes, their training would kick in and they would probably end up doing it - but that moment of natural hesitation is something of a concern.
Throughout our knowledgable history, it was the males that did the "killing", either for food or battle. Females cared for people, gathered food via foraging, and only occasionally had to resort to hunting. True, these times are long gone - but it would seem our mentalities for many such things still exist. Perhaps they always will; I don‘t know. But it‘s something any candidate should consider when joining a Combat Arms trade, male or female.
I decided to do an unofficial survey of some females. Out of the 15 or so that I talked to, only 3 said that they had the capacity to kill, they thought.
The rest all said the same thing (that I fully agree with). A majority of women seem to have a natural instinct to preserve human life. Perhaps it has something to do with the ability of females to give life, via birth. Perhaps its something more scientific like a lack of testosterone. I don‘t know. But there does seem to be a majority out there that could not do it. Yes, their training would kick in and they would probably end up doing it - but that moment of natural hesitation is something of a concern.
Throughout our knowledgable history, it was the males that did the "killing", either for food or battle. Females cared for people, gathered food via foraging, and only occasionally had to resort to hunting. True, these times are long gone - but it would seem our mentalities for many such things still exist. Perhaps they always will; I don‘t know. But it‘s something any candidate should consider when joining a Combat Arms trade, male or female.
P
PilotGal
Guest
Ghost,
Well, I don‘t claim to know everything, but I do know *some* things. As for your hypothetical question - if it is definitely proven that women decrease the army‘s capability of victory, etc., then I think they should stay behind - the whole point of the army is to fight and win against the enemy - it‘s not some kind of a place where people go to express their democratic rights to equality. But of course, *if* there is a way for this to be prevented, i.e. for *some* women to go on the battlefield even though the majority of them are proven to be weakening the army, etc., then by any/all means, get them in there.
As for gays, etc., I wasn‘t sure, because I‘ve heard horror stories of gays in the army, not necessarily in Canada, but also some here, but well, it‘s good that they aren‘t kicked out at face value.
As for women‘s instincts to preserve life rather than kill, uhhhh, that‘s a load of crap. Honestly, if I have to kill, I would, and if I don‘t have to kill, I wouldn‘t. As simple as that. Are you saying that men kill even if they don‘t have to kill? OK then so what‘s your point? I‘m a woman and I will kill if I am given orders to do so on the battlefield. You cannot stereotype females and put them *all* in one category - namely "maternal, life-preserving insticts." It‘s not instinctual, it‘s social upbringing. And I agree that right now, society is just not ready for women to be equally sent to the battlefield, but I don‘t think that‘s a good enough reason to prevent those who want to go, from going. It starts in small steps. You can‘t just all of a sudden start drafting women to the army whereas a coupla months ago you refused to send *any* women to the battlefield. You know what I mean?
Cycophant,
Actually, no, you are wrong in that. Women have fought in and led armies throughout history. Most often, women were the leaders of Germanic tribes. Only in established society such as the Romans and the Greeks were women confined to the home/palace. You cannot look at those samples and say that it means women have historically been the "maternal" beings, whereas men have been the "killers." That‘s not the way it was. Women had an important role in their tribes and societies, and some cultures still have the women in men‘s roles. In other cultures, men stayed at home and women took care of everything, brought food, etc. I was just reading about that a week ago, and this has been widely accepted by scholars.
An interesting book would be The Light Bearer by Donna Gillespie. It‘s an 800 page book - historical fiction. Very interesting. I suggest you read it. I read it in two days, a very quick read, very informative.
D.
Well, I don‘t claim to know everything, but I do know *some* things. As for your hypothetical question - if it is definitely proven that women decrease the army‘s capability of victory, etc., then I think they should stay behind - the whole point of the army is to fight and win against the enemy - it‘s not some kind of a place where people go to express their democratic rights to equality.
But of course, *if* there is a way for this to be prevented, i.e. for *some* women to go on the battlefield even though the majority of them are proven to be weakening the army, etc., then by any/all means, get them in there. As for gays, etc., I wasn‘t sure, because I‘ve heard horror stories of gays in the army, not necessarily in Canada, but also some here, but well, it‘s good that they aren‘t kicked out at face value.
As for women‘s instincts to preserve life rather than kill, uhhhh, that‘s a load of crap. Honestly, if I have to kill, I would, and if I don‘t have to kill, I wouldn‘t. As simple as that. Are you saying that men kill even if they don‘t have to kill? OK then so what‘s your point? I‘m a woman and I will kill if I am given orders to do so on the battlefield. You cannot stereotype females and put them *all* in one category - namely "maternal, life-preserving insticts." It‘s not instinctual, it‘s social upbringing. And I agree that right now, society is just not ready for women to be equally sent to the battlefield, but I don‘t think that‘s a good enough reason to prevent those who want to go, from going. It starts in small steps. You can‘t just all of a sudden start drafting women to the army whereas a coupla months ago you refused to send *any* women to the battlefield. You know what I mean?
Cycophant,
Actually, no, you are wrong in that. Women have fought in and led armies throughout history. Most often, women were the leaders of Germanic tribes. Only in established society such as the Romans and the Greeks were women confined to the home/palace. You cannot look at those samples and say that it means women have historically been the "maternal" beings, whereas men have been the "killers." That‘s not the way it was. Women had an important role in their tribes and societies, and some cultures still have the women in men‘s roles. In other cultures, men stayed at home and women took care of everything, brought food, etc. I was just reading about that a week ago, and this has been widely accepted by scholars.
An interesting book would be The Light Bearer by Donna Gillespie. It‘s an 800 page book - historical fiction. Very interesting. I suggest you read it. I read it in two days, a very quick read, very informative.
D.
Similar threads
