women in military
- Thread starter Harold III
- Start date
- Status
Harold III
In Runtime
- Messages
- 333
Ok may I say a little?
First of all I'm completely neutral about this topic, and I'm trying to consider all the facts in a objective way.
the first hot point in this debate is whether or not women are capable of all military jobs. intellectually, women in military score higher than men. physically, women are not as strong as men through out history, but during resent years women's athletic performances are getting closer and closer to men. Also considering the environment most women grow in, we can see that culture demands women to be less muscular. Another fact is that as modern warfares and strategies involves more and more high technology, body strength is getting less and less important.
The second hot point is whether it is appropriate for women to kill or get killed in the battle field. Should women be gentle and less agressive than men? Their hormones do have some effect on agressiveness. However our culture demands women to be nurturers rather than killers since they have adopted the task of bearing children for a long time. As far as the willingness of suffering injury, I would like to wait till some ladies posted their opinions
The third hot point is the equality between men and women. Chivalry values require men to take care of women, the reason is women are thought to be WEAKER than men. So chivalry value is based on men's expectation, not women's. Again, our culture specifies such a standard that men should open doors and pay for purchases, therefore such actions are social NORMS rather than personal desires.
First of all I'm completely neutral about this topic, and I'm trying to consider all the facts in a objective way.
the first hot point in this debate is whether or not women are capable of all military jobs. intellectually, women in military score higher than men. physically, women are not as strong as men through out history, but during resent years women's athletic performances are getting closer and closer to men. Also considering the environment most women grow in, we can see that culture demands women to be less muscular. Another fact is that as modern warfares and strategies involves more and more high technology, body strength is getting less and less important.
The second hot point is whether it is appropriate for women to kill or get killed in the battle field. Should women be gentle and less agressive than men? Their hormones do have some effect on agressiveness. However our culture demands women to be nurturers rather than killers since they have adopted the task of bearing children for a long time. As far as the willingness of suffering injury, I would like to wait till some ladies posted their opinions
The third hot point is the equality between men and women. Chivalry values require men to take care of women, the reason is women are thought to be WEAKER than men. So chivalry value is based on men's expectation, not women's. Again, our culture specifies such a standard that men should open doors and pay for purchases, therefore such actions are social NORMS rather than personal desires.
Physical and mental requirements are not an issue as I stated, because the applicant's ability is tested on an individual basis.
Your second point is merely society wanting to hold on to tradition, which, in my opinion, is either useless or a very bad thing. As we move forward intellectually as a society we must adjust our standards accordingly.
It is the woman's own decision whether she wants to be on the battlefield and suffer, who is anyone else to restrict that right?
By the way, chivalry is not a good tradition in this day and age. Chivalry is to woman what being a charmer to get into a girl's pants is to men. Men use charm to abuse and manipulate woman, and woman use chivalry to manipulate and abuse men. Both of these attitudes have got to go. Either way, they have no bearing on legal issues in my opinion.
As I said, one key problem would be developing relationships on the battlefield, and possible sexual abuse from pent-up men.
Your second point is merely society wanting to hold on to tradition, which, in my opinion, is either useless or a very bad thing. As we move forward intellectually as a society we must adjust our standards accordingly.
It is the woman's own decision whether she wants to be on the battlefield and suffer, who is anyone else to restrict that right?
By the way, chivalry is not a good tradition in this day and age. Chivalry is to woman what being a charmer to get into a girl's pants is to men. Men use charm to abuse and manipulate woman, and woman use chivalry to manipulate and abuse men. Both of these attitudes have got to go. Either way, they have no bearing on legal issues in my opinion.
As I said, one key problem would be developing relationships on the battlefield, and possible sexual abuse from pent-up men.
hmmmm All I know is women can't be navy SEALS. I am not sure why, but obviously, think about a women being out during their.... ehemmmm.... well you guys know..... In the ****in wilderness, Their not gonna have time to change a tampon when their in the middle of a ****in firefight...
Harold III
In Runtime
- Messages
- 333
if men quit seeing women as sexual objects, and show respect to them(same for women too), we'll not have no trouble about discipline.
- Status
