- Joined
- Oct 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,586
You just twisted my post into something that I did not say. I definitely did not say that some people are more expendable than others and I definitely did not imply that in any way.
I would say it was an accurate representation of your post since you seemed to elevating women above men saying they were too precious to lose. It seems like you were saying they alone are the thing holding out civilization together.
Explain how a population of any nation sees no change after a war that drastically drains it of lives?
There is changes, however, I have yet to see the casualties of a war cause the nation's population to collapse.
You failed to consider the effects of greater scale conflicts. Your numbers are meaningless if the big picture changes. During WWII, the % of our population employed by the military was almost 13%, and a very tiny fraction of that were women. If another world war erupts, heaven forbid, the assimilation of women in our military would spell disaster for them and America's families, as I mentioned before.
Yes, and as I stated if another war of that scale broke out with today's technology, women won't be safe at home either. That would be the least of our concern considering the whole world would be endangered.
Women have different physical and medical needs than women. You are erroneously comparing the assimilation of minorities, who also happen to be male, to the assimilation of women, which is a completely different story. Many of our generals today are expressing their opinion that the military is simply unready for such changes to the military's living quarters, redistribution and redesign of equipment, and other logistical problems facing a large influx of a different gender in the military, not to mention the costs.
They may have different needs but that doesn't mean they cannot serve in combat. If men's needs can be catered to why can't women's? Minorities was a good comparison since the same arguments you are making against women were made against minorities in some shape or form. ie "women are weaker" vs "minorities are dumber" (before assimilation). Both those statements were backed by averages in tests.
You are missing the point by a mile. Would you consider the situation of men and women together in a battlezone in a world war the same as the situation of men and women together in an office cubical? When both are thrust into highly destablized, chaotic situations, it is much more likely that rape can occur than male and female coworkers chatting over their morning coffee at the workplace.
Rape within a unit is the fault of the aggressor. You're saying women should be excluded because men simply can't control themselves due to instinct? So men can do whatever they want and blame it on instinct so the laws must be catered to them? I believe men are in the wrong here, not the women. They shouldn't be barred from service simply because some people cannot control themselves. Those people belong in jail, not in our military.
That is not the problem of a male soldier. You cannot "train" men to suppress their sexual instincts as much as you can "train" men to shoot a weapon. We are not taking away anyone's rights here. Females and males alike have to consider the consequences before deciding whether to fully "equalize" society, as in destroy traditional gender roles by allowing women into the military.
That is not the problem if the male soldier? You must be joking. Humans have the power to suppress instincts. Suppressing self preservation in itself shows they can suppress any other instinct if they wanted to. The belief that you are a slave to your instincts and have no control over them is simply not true. I am sure some men are too weak willed to do it can be done.
If you truly believe this then you surely believe women should be removed from the entire military since they would be given preferential treatment by us Neanderthal males who cannot evolve past mere instincts.