Pentagon Allows Women To Serve In Combat Roles

[AhSpicyDrop]

Allow me to introduce a little bit of Bill Hicks into this conversation, as it really does express how I feel about women being able to serve in combat roles.

Anyone - DUMB ENOUGH - to want to be in the military should be allowed in. End of fuckin' story. That should be the only requirement. I don't care how many push-ups you can do, put on a helmet, go wait in that fox-hole, we'll tell you when we need you to kill somebody. Y'know what I mean?

I'm all for anybody that wants to serve their country in a role like that. Because I sure as hell don't want to do it. I respect anybody that's willing to put their life on hold for the sake of making a payday and fighting for "what's right". But I don't want to do it.

If a woman wants to stop making $2 tips in the diner and wants to pick up a machine gun and mow down some terrorists then I gladly step aside and encourage her to do it. More power to her. As someone above said they're allowed to be police officers and firemen, so why not?

[Piotr Yazputin]

The only real legitimate argument I ever heard for why women shouldn't serve on the front lines came from my 11th grade AP Biology teacher. She said women shouldn't serve on front lines because all of their menstrual cycles would eventually line up, and that could cause problems.

I can see why that would be an issue, but if that is the only reason then I see no problem with them serving.

[Mikey Stormrage's Third Nipple]

The only issue that I have with this has been the talk of lowering the standards for women so they can meet said standards to join the Combat Arms ranks. There's already different standards for women than men, and they want to change them more? Fuck that shit.

[CM Punk is a Jew]

I have a measured, elaborate counter to all of the unanimous quips here in favor of this branded egalitarianism. If anyone would like to read an ideological opponent's thought process (or perhaps "debate" me), I would be happy to take this to the Bar Room sub forum.

I'm "new" here but I'd rather be banned for an actual rules violation rather than just pissing off one of the resident nerd crew. PM me if you want validation for my individual (internet anon) identity, or re-start this topic in the "non-spam" forum where I can respond without worrying that my effortful reply will not be deleted within the day. i'm not too concerned - i was shocked to find this sub-forum of GroupThink this community.

[Rayne]

Originally Posted by CM Punk is a Jew

I have a measured, elaborate counter to all of the unanimous quips here in favor of this branded egalitarianism. If anyone would like to read an ideological opponent's thought process (or perhaps "debate" me), I would be happy to take this to the Bar Room sub forum.

I'm "new" here but I'd rather be banned for an actual rules violation rather than just pissing off one of the resident nerd crew. PM me if you want validation for my individual (internet anon) identity, or re-start this topic in the "non-spam" forum where I can respond without worrying that my effortful reply will not be deleted within the day. i'm not too concerned - i was shocked to find this sub-forum of GroupThink this community.

Sounds to me more like you can't conduct a "debate" without personally attacking the other party, and are looking for people to open doors for you so that you can do that. Before you've even opened discussion with anyone, you have written everyone off as 'groupthinkers' being held in sway by moderators who will delete your thread not because you didn't even attempt to discuss the topic therein (an actual rules violation in the non-spam forums), but because they must hold an opinion that's different than yours and must be seeking to use their authority to hold you down.

Shit, it's Todd all over again, except this one knows a couple of $2 words and passes that off for intelligence.

As far as women in the military? I have yet to hear a single good reason why a woman who is qualified for a position, and who wants the position, should not be allowed to hold it. The best thing I've heard is low, disaffected mumbling about 'periods', and a few people who have gotten the definitions of chivalry and chauvinism backwards.

[Sinister Shadows]

So will they also have to sign up for selective service now? I personally don't see any reason they can't serve as long as they pass the requirements.

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Originally Posted by Rayne

As far as women in the military? I have yet to hear a single good reason why a woman who is qualified for a position, and who wants the position, should not be allowed to hold it. The best thing I've heard is low, disaffected mumbling about 'periods', and a few people who have gotten the definitions of chivalry and chauvinism backwards.

I think the thought process not only had to do with chivalry, at least at the onset of the rule, but also developed into the idea of an added, unnecessary, possible additional stress factor in an already stressed environment. Plus the possible distraction that can come with it. I know you're not naive enough to think that there's no way adding a female presence to any situation dominated by males can't add those things. It's human nature.

The same thought process can be used with gays in the military. Except in that case it's a different kind of stress.