toldailytopic: GI Jane: Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the armed

[MaryContrary]

I sort of agree, but I think that it's quite important that this tendency is changed and I'm not sure that continuing to set women apart from men is the way to make this happen.

Uh...how about no?

Thanks and all. Appreciate the thought but...yeah, you can keep that.

 

[MrRadish]

Uh...how about no?

Thanks and all. Appreciate the thought but...yeah, you can keep that.

What part of what I said are you objecting to?

 

[MaryContrary]

...until men can set their natural tendency to protect women aside...

...I think that it's quite important that this tendency is changed...

Am I misunderstanding? You think it's quite important that the natural tendency men have to protect women be changed/put aside?

 

[MrRadish]

Am I misunderstanding? You think it's quite important that the natural tendency men have to protect women be changed/put aside?

I think that the tendency men have to protect women because they're women should be put aside, yes. I think men should want to protect people because they're people, not because they don't have a Y chromosome.

 

[lightbringer]

Personally I wouldn't want to see the protection of women changed generally, but as far as during combat or service in the military why should any soldier be treated any different simply due to gender?

Equality can be a two edged sword!

 

[MrRadish]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that men shouldn't want to protect women. I'm just saying they should want to protect men as well. Just like women should. At a push, you could say that people should want to protect individuals who're less able to protect themselves, which might shift the balance in favour of men protecting women slightly more often than the other way round, but my point is that gender shouldn't be the reason for wanting to protect someone.

 

[MaryContrary]

I think that the tendency men have to protect women because they're women should be put aside, yes. I think men should want to protect people because they're people, not because they don't have a Y chromosome.

Uh...how about no?

Thanks and all. Appreciate the thought but...yeah, you can keep that.

I'm of the opinion that women suffer quite a lot just by virtue of being women, but that there are things built into the system to balance that out. So I can't agree with this.

If you want to propose a trade-off, I'd suggest going and figuring out a way for men to give birth and putting that on the table for consideration. And maybe menstrual cycles. Figure out a way for men to take that on in our stead.

I think if men can take those off our hands, women in general might agree to trade that for making war. You guys stay home and do menstrual cycles, and pregnancy. We'll go fight wars for you. I think that's fair. Some might disagree, but it's a good place to start negotiations.

See my sig. Thanks, but we've already been fooled into taking on a lot of your stuff with little or nothing in return. Not by men, don't get me wrong. But still.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that men shouldn't want to protect women. I'm just saying they should want to protect men as well. Just like women should. At a push, you could say that people should want to protect individuals who're less able to protect themselves, which might shift the balance in favour of men protecting women slightly more often than the other way round, but my point is that gender shouldn't be the reason for wanting to protect someone.

Nope. Can't agree with that.

If a man is faced with the decision to risk his life saving another man or saving a woman...he better save the woman or I'll probably kick his butt myself.

 

[PureX]

I think that the tendency men have to protect women because they're women should be put aside, yes. I think men should want to protect people because they're people, not because they don't have a Y chromosome.

Perhaps, but expecting human beings to deny human nature is expecting more than is realistic, I think. And perhaps more than is appropriate.

 

[lightbringer]

If a man is faced with the decision to risk his life saving another man or saving a woman...he better save the woman or I'll probably kick his butt myself.

OK Mary, put the razor back in your boot.

I seem to remember a little campaign some years back "Womens Suffrage", now after a few years you guys have made some real changes as far as womens rights are concerned and it seems that some ladies want to be able to decide which right will be applied and in what circumstance and at what time?

Before any one else says it, I haven't forgotten that my Mom told me that it is a womans prerogative to change her mind, I just wish they wouldn't do it so often.

 

[MaryContrary]

OK Mary, put the razor back in your boot.

I didn't think I'd mentioned that around here... :noid:

I seem to remember a little campaign some years back "Womens Suffrage", now after a few years you guys have made some real changes as far as womens rights are concerned and it seems that some ladies want to be able to decide which right will be applied and in what circumstance and at what time?

It take what rights are mine and leave the rest, thanks. :thumb:

Before any one else says it, I haven't forgotten that my Mom told me that it is a womans prerogative to change her mind, I just wish they wouldn't do so often.

That's just a polite way of saying we're smarter than you guys. See, by saying we "changed our minds" it makes it easier for you to adapt to the seeming change in direction prompted by what circumstances might arise. Thus, neither of us need be saddled with enduring long explanations to convey all the intricacies...

I'm sorry, was I going to fast for you?

Look, just...don't worry about it. Go have a beer or something. Maybe football's on TV.

 

[MrRadish]

I'm of the opinion that women suffer quite a lot just by virtue of being women, but that there are things built into the system to balance that out. So I can't agree with this.

If you want to propose a trade-off, I'd suggest going and figuring out a way for men to give birth and putting that on the table for consideration. And maybe menstrual cycles. Figure out a way for men to take that on in our stead.

I think if men can take those off our hands, women in general might agree to trade that for making war. You guys stay home and do menstrual cycles, and pregnancy. We'll go fight wars for you. I think that's fair. Some might disagree, but it's a good place to start negotiations.

:AMR:

So you're saying that because women undergo painful and sometimes dangerous biological processes that are ultimately the fault of nature, men ought to consider their lives to be more valuable (or at least less expendable) than their own?

That makes no sense. People with nut allergies undergo painful and sometimes dangerous biological processes that are ultimately the fault of nature and don't expect preferential treatment for it.

If something is important enough to go to war about, then it should be something that everybody can fight in. If men can choose to go to the front lines, women should be able to as well. Nobody would be forcing them to. And if the situation is dire enough for men to be conscripted and forced to fight a war they might not even agree with, it's dire enough for women to receive the same treatment.

See my sig. Thanks, but we've already been fooled into taking on a lot of your stuff with little or nothing in return. Not by men, don't get me wrong. But still.

That 'little or nothing' presumably including things like 'being able to vote' and 'not being considered a legal possession of your husband'. lain:

I agree that there are (optional, non-biologically-dictated) things that women are expected to do that there's currently little pressure on men to do as well.

Nope. Can't agree with that.

Why not? Aside from "women undergo childbirth".

If a man is faced with the decision to risk his life saving another man or saving a woman...he better save the woman or I'll probably kick his butt myself.

I find that abhorrent.

 

[lightbringer]

I didn't think I'd mentioned that around here... :noid:

Memory getting a little fuzzy Mary?

It take what rights are mine and leave the rest, thanks. :thumb:

:chuckle: sounds like a woman.

That's just a polite way of saying we're smarter than you guys.

:rotfl: Sounds more like some one shooting themselves in the foot.

See, by saying we "changed our minds" it makes it easier for you to adapt to the seeming change in direction prompted by what circumstances might arise. Thus, neither of us need be saddled with enduring long explanations to convey all the intricacies...

The principle reason selective hearing came about in men.

I'm sorry, was I going to fast for you?

No Mary you were not, might be your boots slowing you down as I'm sure its not your age.

 

[MaryContrary]

:AMR:

So you're saying that because women undergo painful and sometimes dangerous biological processes that are ultimately the fault of nature, men ought to consider their lives to be more valuable (or at least less expendable) than their own?

That makes no sense. People with nut allergies undergo painful and sometimes dangerous biological processes that are ultimately the fault of nature and don't expect preferential treatment for it.

If something is important enough to go to war about, then it should be something that everybody can fight in. If men can choose to go to the front lines, women should be able to as well. Nobody would be forcing them to. And if the situation is dire enough for men to be conscripted and forced to fight a war they might not even agree with, it's dire enough for women to receive the same treatment.

That 'little or nothing' presumably including things like 'being able to vote' and 'not being considered a legal possession of your husband'. lain:

I agree that there are (optional, non-biologically-dictated) things that women are expected to do that there's currently little pressure on men to do as well.

Nope. Can't agree with that.

Why not? Aside from "women undergo childbirth".

I find that abhorrent.

My apologies for overestimating your sense of humor. I'll be more serious on this topic from here out, if you're going to get all hysterical about it. Maybe you should lie down on the couch a bit before you faint or something.

 

[Breathe]

See my sig. Thanks, but we've already been fooled into taking on a lot of your stuff with little or nothing in return. Not by men, don't get me wrong. But still.

This kind of sums up my philosophy:
"Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the short end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges - all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, "equality" is a disaster." --- Robert Heinlein

I totally agree with you, Mary. We may be equal, but we are also different.

 

[MrRadish]

Perhaps, but expecting human beings to deny human nature is expecting more than is realistic, I think. And perhaps more than is appropriate.

I can see your point to a certain extent, but I think to try and define what parts of 'human nature' are immutable and which parts can be altered or suppressed is extremely problematic, to be honest. You could say it's human nature to hurt people you don't like - most people have wanted to do that at some stage and many actually have done. That doesn't mean that we don't discourage it and ultimately try to change the way we think about it so that we don't end up wanting to.

That's not to say we should flat-out reject the instinct. Just like you can adapt the violent impulses of anger to spur you on to do something constructive, I don't think it would be too hard to adapt the instinct to protect women to encourage you to try and protect anybody that needs protecting.

 

[MrRadish]

My apologies for overestimating your sense of humor. I'll be more serious on this topic from here out, if you're going to get all hysterical about it. Maybe you should lie down on the couch a bit before you faint or something.

lain:

Sorry for assuming you were interested in a proper discussion.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

I really don't know. I guess it's up to them?

I mean the ancient Celts did have the mighty Boudicca, then again that was a Pagan society. Where did I read that the Romans had thought that the Celtic woman had fought fiercer than the men?

 

[Yorzhik]

I think we should not only allow women to fill all combat roles, but we should have a contingent of female infantry. When they get half wiped out by what should be a lesser force, and the other half get captured raped, that might be the only way this lesson can be learned.

In fact, we might even get more from something like this and get rid of women's "right to vote", too.

 

[Town Heretic]

Should women be allowed to serve...

Sure. Men have to eat. Even in combat situations. :TomO:

I'm so not getting female rep for that one. lain:

 

[MaryContrary]

Should women be allowed to serve...

Sure. Men have to eat. Even in combat situations. :TomO:

I'm so not getting female rep for that one. lain:

You must spread some reputation around...

:idunno: