New Body Armor for Women

[Publius]

Women are people.

Of course they're people. However, not all people are men. Women happen to be an example of those people who are not men.

I am not following, how is allowing women who wish to be in combat an act of cowardice on anyones part?

How can sending the very ones you're supposed to be protecting out in front to fight your battles for you be anything but cowardice?

Should a deity ever show up and make its opnion know I will listen, I am not going to take your word on the matter.

He's already made His opinion known

I am not, and never have been, in the military therefor all of my "battles" will be fought by others how is it cowardice to allow women to do it but not cowardice to allow men to do so?

Because it's one of the roles assigned to men by God.

The US military exists to protect the US, the women in it signed up to do just that and I am confidant that their training makes them much more capable them I am to do that.

Again, it has nothing to do with capability.

Sending robots into battles can be regarded as an act of cowardice, too, but I don't see people protesting against it.

I don't see how using machines in war is cowardice, but then, I don't see how someone who claims to be an engineer can believe that an ordered universe can exist without a designer.

What your brainstem refuses to tell you, however, is that hurting people in general is bad.

Why? Why is it bad to hurt someone if hurting them is required to stop or prevent them from hurting an innocent?

And, as an atheist, how do you know it's bad?

Frankly, I don't see how anyone could condemn the use of female combatants without condemning war in general.

They're two different things.

Does this word even exist?

Yes. It's a word used to describe the beliefs of a person who believes in complimentarianism.

Yeah, I don't see how sitting at a notebook 2000 kilometers away from the battle and shooting hellfire missiles at civilian fuel tankers is cowardice, either.

Then we're agreed. Neither one are cowardice.

And your comment had no relevance to the topic.

I believe it did.

Hurting people is a bad action, whether you do it for the right reason or not.

Why? Why is it bad to hurt someone if hurting them stops or prevents them from hurting an innocent? And, as an atheist, how do you know it's bad? Aren't you just imposing your values on the rest of us?

Now, please explain to me how your wars save innocents.

See WWII.

Do you think I don't have moral standards just because I'm an atheist? How cute.

No, I believe Romans 1 when it says that God has given all men an inate understanding of right and wrong, so of course I believe you have moral standards. I'm just pointing out that your moral standards are subjective.

Ah, I see! So it's okay to destroy the economy of a country and kill a good chunk of its population, but it's not okay if it's done by women?

If the war is justified, yes.

I see. Sounds like sexism with a fancy name to me.

If you don't understand the difference between something so simple as favoring one sex over another and valuing both sexes equally, then how can we trust your judgement on something so complex as the existence of God?

Does that mean I need to give my math and engineering degrees back? Women aren't supposed to be too good at all that figurin' kind of stuff, right?

Who says? Don't tell my wife that. She's better at math than I'll ever be and is a noted forensic accountant.

History proves you wrong; many civilizations throughout history have had many great female warriors.

How does that prove me wrong when I never said anything to the contrary?

That is essentially what you're saying whether you realize, understand, grasp and comprehend this fact, or not.

Actually, I never said anything even remotely like that. Your lack of reading comprehension skills is duly noted.

It's pretty sexist.

No, sexist means to favor one sex over another. It has nothing to do with recognizing the differences in gender roles.

Yes, God forbid that adult females be allowed to choose their own career. We should celebrate that women are different by forcing them into a narrow set of roles defined by, guess who, men.

What's the difference between that and you celebrating their difference by insisting that they act like men and take on men's responsibilities? What, then, makes them different?

We have a volunteer army.

Last time I checked, there were all sorts of restrictions on who can and cannot join our volunteer army.

Who are you to tell women what they can and can not volunteer for?

Nowhere in my post did I say any such thing.

We call that sexism.

Then you would be greatly served by investing a few dollars in a good dictionary so that you don't make such mistakes.

 

[Desk trauma]

No, I'm saying that women are females and, as females, they are not to be combatants and that it is an act of cowardice to have women fight your battles for you.

I am not following, how is allowing women who wish to be in combat an act of cowardice on anyones part?

I am not, and never have been, in the military therefor all of my "battles" will be fought by others how is it cowardice to allow women to do it but not cowardice to allow men to do so?

 

[The Engineer]

No, I'm saying that women are females and, as females, they are not to be combatants and that it is an act of cowardice to have women fight your battles for you.

Sending robots into battles can be regarded as an act of cowardice, too, but I don't see people protesting against it.

At the end of the day, this issue about letting females fight your battles boils down to your brainstem telling you that hurting women is bad. What your brainstem refuses to tell you, however, is that hurting people in general is bad.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone could condemn the use of female combatants without condemning war in general.

No, it's not sexist. It's complimentarianist.

Does this word even exist?

 

[Creech]

Men need to act more like men and women need to act more like women. "Equality" is just a feel good word that in most cases makes no sense whatsoever. Men and Women are naturally different and are better for different roles and those differences should be celebrated, not trampled on.

Women soldiers? What's next, child soldiers?

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

Men need to act more like men and women need to act more like women. "Equality" is just a feel good word that in most cases makes no sense whatsoever. Men and Women are naturally different and are better for different roles and those differences should be celebrated, not trampled on.

Women soldiers? What's next, child soldiers?

Does that mean I need to give my math and engineering degrees back? Women aren't supposed to be too good at all that figurin' kind of stuff, right?

 

[Cute Tink]

Men and Women are naturally different and are better for different roles and those differences should be celebrated, not trampled on.

And what you want to do is make sure that women only do those things that you believe they are suited for, correct?

 

[mpok1519]

No, I'm saying that women are females and, as females, they are not to be combatants

History proves you wrong; many civilizations throughout history have had many great female warriors.

and that it is an act of cowardice to have women fight your battles for you.

I agree; it's not fair to conscript women. however, it is an act of cowardice, sexism, chauvinism, and pigheadedness when a woman pledges her services as a soldier and you deny them that ability.

No, it's not sexist. It's complimentarianist.

Denying a woman the ability to serve as a soldier is sexist. "You're a woman; you can't fight for your country! If you really care youd get back into the kitchen and start making babies, preferably males who can later serve as cannon fodder!"

That is essentially what you're saying whether you realize, understand, grasp and comprehend this fact, or not.

 

[mpok1519]

Men need to act more like men and women need to act more like women. "Equality" is just a feel good word that in most cases makes no sense whatsoever. Men and Women are naturally different and are better for different roles and those differences should be celebrated, not trampled on.

Women soldiers? What's next, child soldiers?

Child soldiers used to be the norm. We changed that.

Your entire post is sexist.

That line of reasoning is what men of power used to keep women under their control. It's what kept women from positions of power or influence. It wasn't right for a married women to be a school teacher. Women only recently have been able to hold public office of higher seats. Women weren't allowed to be judges, attorneys, doctors, and scientists simply because men with your type of anachronistic and chauvinistic thinking denied them necessary resources and education. Why? For control. Why? God only knows why people want to control other people.

I can only say I am disgusted this type of thinking still exists, and I am thankful it will eventually die out with the generations that hold them, granted they don't poison the well future generations drink from.

 

[IanCG]

No, I'm saying that women are females and, as females, they are not to be combatants and that it is an act of cowardice to have women fight your battles for you.



No, it's not sexist. It's complimentarianist.

It's pretty sexist.

 

[Desk trauma]

How can sending the very ones you're supposed to be protecting out in front to fight your battles for you be anything but cowardice?

The US military exists to protect the US, the women in it signed up to do just that and I am confidant that their training makes them much more capable them I am to do that.

Because it's one of the roles assigned to men by God.

Should a deity ever show up and make its opnion know I will listen, I am not going to take your word on the matter.

 

[Cromulent]

Men need to act more like men and women need to act more like women. "Equality" is just a feel good word that in most cases makes no sense whatsoever. Men and Women are naturally different and are better for different roles and those differences should be celebrated, not trampled on.

Women soldiers? What's next, child soldiers?

Yes, God forbid that adult females be allowed to choose their own career. We should celebrate that women are different by forcing them into a narrow set of roles defined by, guess who, men.

 

[The Engineer]

I don't see how using machines in war is cowardice,

Yeah, I don't see how sitting at a notebook 2000 kilometers away from the battle and shooting hellfire missiles at civilian fuel tankers is cowardice, either.

but then, I don't see how someone who claims to be an engineer can believe that an ordered universe can exist without a designer.

I'm not an engineer. That's just my name.

And your comment had no relevance to the topic.

Why? Why is it bad to hurt someone if hurting them is required to stop or prevent them from hurting an innocent?

Hurting people is a bad action, whether you do it for the right reason or not. That's not to say it's not justifiable, or that I would condemn someone for doing it if he does it with the intention of saving innocents.

Now, please explain to me how your wars save innocents.

And, as an atheist, how do you know it's bad?

Do you think I don't have moral standards just because I'm an atheist? How cute.

They're two different things.

Ah, I see! So it's okay to destroy the economy of a country and kill a good chunk of its population, but it's not okay if it's done by women?

Yes. It's a word used to describe the beliefs of a person who believes in complimentarianism.

I see. Sounds like sexism with a fancy name to me.

 

[Wolseley]

What kind of nation has their women fight their battles for them?

This kind:

Of course, in their defense, the Soviet Union suffered 28 million casualties in World War II; they put thousands of women on the battlefield because they had to.

 

[IanCG]

Russia did it, so it's bad?

 

[Desk trauma]

Russia did it, so it's bad?

As I stated earlier in the thread the army with the largest number of female soldiers that allows them the fullest involvement in combat and the only one that conscripts them, is Israel. Oddly there is no criticism, that I have seen in any case, of for the behavior of that army when it comes to gender roles.

 

[Wolseley]

Russia did it, so it's bad?

I didn't say that. Publius asked what sort of nation puts women in combat, and I simply replied, that's all. The Soviet Union did---they didn't have much of a choice.

And then there's the Israelis, as has been mentioned.

 

[IanCG]

I didn't say that. Publius asked what sort of nation puts women in combat, and I simply replied, that's all. The Soviet Union did---they didn't have much of a choice.

And then there's the Israelis, as has been mentioned.

Was just wondering.

 

[jminnesota]

i have no issue with women being in the army or police or etc. women can do the same jobs men can do. they should deserve same protection and all to protect themselfs from harm. hopefully if there are guys in there group the guys would look after them some and be men and protect them first. if ya see she about to be shot become there shield.

 

[variant]

No, I'm saying that women are females and, as females, they are not to be combatants and that it is an act of cowardice to have women fight your battles for you.

We have a volunteer army.

Who are you to tell women what they can and can not volunteer for?

No, it's not sexist. It's complimentarianist.

We call that sexism.

 

[JTornado1]

No, I'm saying that women are females and, as females, they are not to be combatants and that it is an act of cowardice to have women fight your battles for you.



No, it's not sexist. It's complimentarianist.

Complimentarianism is sexism repackaged.