S|kH
SPNer
Pentagon Wants Women In Combat - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/9/133043.shtml
---------
Should Women be allowed in military units that engage in combat?
The feminists demand it as its part of "equality" and "equal rights".
Over time, US military that has engaged in combat has always been male, very rarely, if ever has a female seen combat and participated actively in it. I'm sure females have faced combat, but what the Pentagon wants to do now, is SEND woman on a MISSION to the combat zones.
Prior female-combat occurred accidentally if the women were ambushed etc..
Should women be sent to the front lines?
I think not. It's just a difference between the way we're born. Previous examples of mixing men and women off shore occurred in 1991, when the US Navy ship "Acadia," subsequently nicknamed "The Love Boat," had to evacuate to shore 36 out of a crew of 360 sailors because they were pregnant. Of course something like this will easily happen again, but this is besides the point.
I, am in no way, saying women should not be allowed into the military services but to send them to the front lines seems absurd to me. Perhaps it's just gender roles we are born with. I was always raised thinking that the man stands up and protects the woman, that the woman should be able to protect themselves, but as a last resort. Not while the man stands behind and does nothing.
If someone breaks into your house, the woman grabs the child, and the man steps up to confront the tresspasser.
Yes, perhaps this is a gender role, but isn't it genetic? Children are usually much more attached to their mother and females have qualities which are *usually* kindlier than males and more affectionate. The male would worry about the child, but his instinctive reaction is to protect all behind him, so his first move is to step up and confront.
Can it be the other way around? Sure it can, but that is different than purposely sending the women on the front line. Giving her a sole mission on the combat zone.
Let me ask you: What do you think would put more strain on morale? A guy getting a leg blown off, or a woman getting a leg blown off? A man crying in pain, or a woman crying on pain?
Think about the rape? the molestation?
I mean, if terrorists captured males and raped them they would be the laughing stock of the muslim community....as they seem as if their fundamental muslims, yet they have homosexual sex?
Anyways, I would definetly not feel comfortable hearing women death tolls and women being raped everyday on the TV.
Let them join the military services, but do not send them to combat zones.
---------
Should Women be allowed in military units that engage in combat?
The feminists demand it as its part of "equality" and "equal rights".
Over time, US military that has engaged in combat has always been male, very rarely, if ever has a female seen combat and participated actively in it. I'm sure females have faced combat, but what the Pentagon wants to do now, is SEND woman on a MISSION to the combat zones.
Prior female-combat occurred accidentally if the women were ambushed etc..
Should women be sent to the front lines?
I think not. It's just a difference between the way we're born. Previous examples of mixing men and women off shore occurred in 1991, when the US Navy ship "Acadia," subsequently nicknamed "The Love Boat," had to evacuate to shore 36 out of a crew of 360 sailors because they were pregnant. Of course something like this will easily happen again, but this is besides the point.
I, am in no way, saying women should not be allowed into the military services but to send them to the front lines seems absurd to me. Perhaps it's just gender roles we are born with. I was always raised thinking that the man stands up and protects the woman, that the woman should be able to protect themselves, but as a last resort. Not while the man stands behind and does nothing.
If someone breaks into your house, the woman grabs the child, and the man steps up to confront the tresspasser.
Yes, perhaps this is a gender role, but isn't it genetic? Children are usually much more attached to their mother and females have qualities which are *usually* kindlier than males and more affectionate. The male would worry about the child, but his instinctive reaction is to protect all behind him, so his first move is to step up and confront.
Can it be the other way around? Sure it can, but that is different than purposely sending the women on the front line. Giving her a sole mission on the combat zone.
Let me ask you: What do you think would put more strain on morale? A guy getting a leg blown off, or a woman getting a leg blown off? A man crying in pain, or a woman crying on pain?
Think about the rape? the molestation?
I mean, if terrorists captured males and raped them they would be the laughing stock of the muslim community....as they seem as if their fundamental muslims, yet they have homosexual sex?
Anyways, I would definetly not feel comfortable hearing women death tolls and women being raped everyday on the TV.
Let them join the military services, but do not send them to combat zones.
