Women on the front line

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Asguard, Sep 9, 2009.

  1. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    This is about a move by the Federal gov to increase ADF numbers and provide gender and age equality but this thread is mainly about the comment in Bold. when i first herd it it was on TV and it was frazed slightly differently (i dont know wether that was because he said it multiple times or because of editing or a mestake in this artical). What he said was "I don't think the people of Australia would like to see their daughters, sisters, wives or female friends killed on the front line". Now specifically aimed at women here who are married or with male children but anyone else as well,

    How many of you are happy to see your sons, brothers, husbands or male friends killed on the front line?

    I thought this sort of bigotry went out years ago but aparently not from the liberal party. NO ONE should be dying on the front line unless its apsolutly nessary and no one should expect there sons to go where they wouldnt expect there daughters to as well.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    What a pile of puke.

    I agree with you Asguard.

    I'm sick of hearing how women are poor delicate child-like beings who can't be allowed to do dangerous work. If a female soldier is physically fit and strong enough to be on the front line she should be on the damn front line.

    What is this logic that says even if a woman is strong she's still automatically weak because she's a woman? Bullshit.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It has nothing to do with their fitness, but with their ability to make babies. If there was a really serious war, the lack of males would not be a problem, but the lack of females would be a threat to a society's very existence.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    Yeah, but since when do we have the right to decide for individual females what they can and can't choose to do with their lives?

    I know if someone told me I can't do a certain job that I've always wanted to do and am sufficiently qualified to do because it would get in the way of my baby-making career, I'd tell them to go walk off a tall building.

    How far do you take that? Do you prevent women doing anything dangerous, because they're needed for baby-making? Or do you mean ONLY in the context of a possible war?

    Also, we're talking about specific units. The SAS/commandos/whatever alone would not make much of a dent in a nation as a whole.
     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049

    umm, if the war was that bad that it wiped out significate portions of population then gender balance is going to be rather unimportant concidering that maybe 5%? of the population is millatry. There for the whole country must have been wiped out or at least most of it and in that senario you think women are going to a) stay out of it and b) be unefected by the distruction of the whole country?

    I find this whole thing stupid, the TV artical went on to talk about the rape of women POW's. I was left wondering wether this guy knew anything about the changy railway at all. Firstly men can be rape just as easerly and with equal or aguably more phsycological and physical injuries (depending on the cirumstances). Before i get shot the reason i state this is that as a general rule women have been strong enough to come forward, seek surport and go through court proccesses to see the perpitrators brought to justice. This isnt the case for men who have been raped in general. Its a very rarly reported crime because of the stigma. Anyway thats for another topic

    Secondly the general conditions of POWs have never been a picknick and simply adding or subtracting rape from the abuses they have sustained is not going to improve or deteriate them at all. Torture, mutilation, summery executions ect are no less horific than rape
     
  9. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    what is a changy railway?

    And women prisoners get raped far more often than males do. And I really can't believe you think its more traumatic for a man to be sodomized than a woman.
     
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    you have never herd what the japanise did to the POWs in WW2?

    Of course it has to be more traumatic for a women doesnt it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    i mean women are MUCH more likly to report a rape, to get counciling for a rape, to be empathised for a rape where as a man who is raped is more likly to have issues with there own sexuality, to hide the fact they were raped, to be ridiculed if people DO find out about it or not to be belived ect ect.
     
  11. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    http://www.abc.net.au/changi/history/burma.htm

    http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/pow/changi.asp
     
  12. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    I never said it was MORE traumatic for women. I think it is equally traumatic. You said "aguably more phsycological and physical injuries" for men. What crap.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Hell, there are still countries where it is legal to rape your wife or a woman out past curfew. Its "understandable" to rape a woman dressed provocatively. Or if a woman is raped, she can save her family's honour by marrying her rapist. So don't give me blather about how men treat other men when it comes to rape.

    And you are trying to bring up 60+ year old data on male POW rape victims? Again, what crap.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What does that have to do with women on the front lines in today's military?
     
  13. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    The point he was making was that females, due to their physical weakness, would be killed in far greater numbers than males.

    Personally, I don't support having females in the military. But, if they're going to be in it, they should be all in. That means yes, they should be in combat and they should have to meet the exact same physical standards as the men.

    I believe that most women couldn't meet the same standards as the men and that the number that could is so small that it's not worth the trouble a co-ed military engenders. But again, if we're going to have females in the military, and the purpose of a military is to fight wars, then any women in the military should be ready, willing, and able to fulfill that function.
     
  14. Anti-Flag Pun intended Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,714
    I actually agree with this, but I support having females in the military.
     
  15. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    If the US forced women out of the military right now, critical jobs that are dominated by or supported greatly by them (medical, logistics, clerical, personnel, etc) would cause horrific ripple effects on the military as a whole. Women on the front lines, carrying guns and fighting in the trenches, I'm not sure. If it's gonna' happen then there should be a "blind" physical endurance test open to anybody, no "norming", no special uniform or hair cut. Exactly the same. But that's only for physical jobs (there's no getting around the fact that the vast majority of women have 1/3 less muscle mass and physical endurance). As far as commanding warships, there's no discernible difference between the way a woman orders the launch of fighter jets and firing of torpedoes.

    Note: Commanding combat ships is already open to women in the USA. The first female CO of an American warship died in 2002.

    ~String
     
  16. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    In all honesty here it is not that women aren;t as capable as men or somehow more fragile. It is that the male psyche has a harder time dealing with a female comrades death then a fellow man's. Kill an infantryman's bestbud and he'll fight three times as hard against you. Kill a woman and all of a suddenl he's doing his damndest to try to ressuscitate her when it is already hopeless. It the men that are the problem, not the women.
     
  17. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    To me the issue is not about whether she can do the job but rather how likely it is she will be raped if captured. Of course men could be raped though this is much less likely. Men could be tortured or mistreated. But the liklihood of rape seems higher to me. That armies that would in general treat prisoners with minimal ethics would end up raping women soldiers and regularly. Especially if they thought these women had killed their buddies.
     
  18. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    The more the merrier.
     
  19. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    Why does it matter so much which type of danger they're facing?

    Why nitpick over whether they're more likely to be raped or have their eyelids removed?

    I agree with the bold part.

    A competent soldier is a competent soldier whether they have a penis or a vagina.
     
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Ditto. It still bugs me though. I just can't get used to the idea of women being exposed to dangerous situations like that. It just isn't...right.

    Pillory away.
     
  21. tuberculatious Banned Banned

    Messages:
    987
    if they can handle science they can handle terrorists.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    True. But terrorists will only kill you.
     
  23. tuberculatious Banned Banned

    Messages:
    987
    physically. but not not mentally.
     

Share This Page