|
On April 18 2012 07:27 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 06:04 FreddYCooL wrote:On April 17 2012 23:48 Kickboxer wrote:
Why do women need to be in the army, again? I'd like to hear some strong arguments for this, apart from the trendy platitudes on how we're exactly the same. I can give you some pretty hefty ones against it. Firstly, putting a small number of females within reach of a large group of testosterone-filled, sex starved young men who are trained to kill each other is asking for rape. If that sounds insulting to your worldview, you will at least have to admit it is disastrous to morale and the dynamic of relationships at an army base - and especially in combat. Secondly, I'd wager that period and the mental and physical changes that come with it present an inconvenience that cannot be justified in life-or-death situations. Most men can barely handle this when it is their girlfriend spazzing out. Thirdly, women fail at unarmed combat against men, period. I know this because I've been doing k-1 for years, and sparring a much more skilled woman close to your weight is laughable. The term "manhandled" wasn't invented by sexists. Consequently, they also fail at keeping up with male soldiers in any kind of exhausting physical situation, or one that requires strength.
I will never, ever understand why women lobby for such things. You don't see men fighting for their right to give birth to children or breast-feed them. Some roles were simply meant for one sex or the other. I think we can all guess which sex was built for combat...
These women willingly put themselves in a situation where they are surrounded by young males who are trained to be violent and aggressive, and who are absolutely deprived of sex, the strongest urge produced by the male brain. Then, they are unable to fend them off in a physical confrontation although fighting is supposed to be their job. Well, doh.
User was temp banned for this post. Why do people like you never understand that the majority of soldiers in a army do NOT have combat roles. Logistics, HR, intelligence etc etc are enormous parts of an modern military and it is in those areas most women and also men serve. I'm assuming he is referring to combat roles. I don't understand why women are allowed into frontline combat, police work, and fire fighting. A soldier is not gonna give you time to pull your wounded brother out of harms way because he sees your a woman, a meth head isn't gonna punch you softer because your a woman, and a fire sure as hell will not burn slower so you can save that kid from the fire because you have a vagina. If a woman can meet the standards awesome let them in and protect them from all the sick fucks who do shit like this but don't lower standards and endanger lives.
Afaik in the US military, women are barred from all combat roles.
|
On April 18 2012 07:37 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 07:27 tokicheese wrote:On April 18 2012 06:04 FreddYCooL wrote:On April 17 2012 23:48 Kickboxer wrote:
Why do women need to be in the army, again? I'd like to hear some strong arguments for this, apart from the trendy platitudes on how we're exactly the same. I can give you some pretty hefty ones against it. Firstly, putting a small number of females within reach of a large group of testosterone-filled, sex starved young men who are trained to kill each other is asking for rape. If that sounds insulting to your worldview, you will at least have to admit it is disastrous to morale and the dynamic of relationships at an army base - and especially in combat. Secondly, I'd wager that period and the mental and physical changes that come with it present an inconvenience that cannot be justified in life-or-death situations. Most men can barely handle this when it is their girlfriend spazzing out. Thirdly, women fail at unarmed combat against men, period. I know this because I've been doing k-1 for years, and sparring a much more skilled woman close to your weight is laughable. The term "manhandled" wasn't invented by sexists. Consequently, they also fail at keeping up with male soldiers in any kind of exhausting physical situation, or one that requires strength.
I will never, ever understand why women lobby for such things. You don't see men fighting for their right to give birth to children or breast-feed them. Some roles were simply meant for one sex or the other. I think we can all guess which sex was built for combat...
These women willingly put themselves in a situation where they are surrounded by young males who are trained to be violent and aggressive, and who are absolutely deprived of sex, the strongest urge produced by the male brain. Then, they are unable to fend them off in a physical confrontation although fighting is supposed to be their job. Well, doh.
User was temp banned for this post. Why do people like you never understand that the majority of soldiers in a army do NOT have combat roles. Logistics, HR, intelligence etc etc are enormous parts of an modern military and it is in those areas most women and also men serve. I'm assuming he is referring to combat roles. I don't understand why women are allowed into frontline combat, police work, and fire fighting. A soldier is not gonna give you time to pull your wounded brother out of harms way because he sees your a woman, a meth head isn't gonna punch you softer because your a woman, and a fire sure as hell will not burn slower so you can save that kid from the fire because you have a vagina. If a woman can meet the standards awesome let them in and protect them from all the sick fucks who do shit like this but don't lower standards and endanger lives. Afaik in the US military, women are barred from all combat roles.
All the official ones, yes. However, in the current organization methods, at least in the Army, there's generally some females around.
Also, "non-combat role" and "non-combatant" mean entirely different things. Frankly, though, a lot of the female soldiers I knew were pretty tough chicks. And I knew some guys in the Army that couldn't handle themselves in a basic fist fight.
I also heard about plenty of cases of male on male sexual assault. It's got a lot less to do with capability and a lot more to do with a combination of opportunity and bad environment. A lot of units cross the fine line between confidence and stupidity in the attitudes they foster in their soldiers, and when you mix that with alcohol or stress, shit can hit the fan.
Frankly, I think a lot of it has to do with the enforced and fostered notion of male "superiority" for certain types of tasks, it breeds contempt. Dehumanize them, treat them as inferior, foster an attitude of invincible hardassery, and people do stupid shit. It's a complex issue, and could probably be mitigated by increased tolerance.
|
Does anyone have names of the perpetrators and or adresses ?
These people are a serious threat to society and should be terminated without hesitation.
Furthermore I require the names and adresses of the officers responsible for dissmissing the cases when brought to them.
|
On April 18 2012 07:48 Holy_AT wrote:
Does anyone have names of the perpetrators and or adresses ?
These people are a serious threat to society and should be terminated without hesitation.
Furthermore I require the names and adresses of the officers responsible for dissmissing the cases when brought to them.
+ Show Spoiler +We got a badass over here 
No seriously though....rape and cooperation with rape/negligence may warrant them losing their jobs, but not to be terminated in the sense you say it.
|
On April 18 2012 07:53 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 07:48 Holy_AT wrote:
Does anyone have names of the perpetrators and or adresses ?
These people are a serious threat to society and should be terminated without hesitation.
Furthermore I require the names and adresses of the officers responsible for dissmissing the cases when brought to them. + Show Spoiler +We got a badass over here No seriously though....rape and cooperation with rape/negligence may warrant them losing their jobs, but not to be terminated in the sense you say it.
"May warrant them losing their jobs"? The rapists are obviously criminals and should go to prison alongside losing their jobs and have to register as sex offenders. The officers who covered up are involved in hindering an investigation and should also go to jail alongside losing their job.
Not MAY. SHOULD. I can't imagine why there is even any doubt about that. Rape is a horrendous crime, not matter what the circumstances might be. The punishment should be severe.
|
On April 18 2012 07:59 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 07:53 Demonhunter04 wrote:On April 18 2012 07:48 Holy_AT wrote:
Does anyone have names of the perpetrators and or adresses ?
These people are a serious threat to society and should be terminated without hesitation.
Furthermore I require the names and adresses of the officers responsible for dissmissing the cases when brought to them. + Show Spoiler +We got a badass over here No seriously though....rape and cooperation with rape/negligence may warrant them losing their jobs, but not to be terminated in the sense you say it. "May warrant them losing their jobs"? The rapists are obviously criminals and should go to prison alongside losing their jobs and have to register as sex offenders. The officers who covered up are involved in hindering an investigation and should also go to jail alongside losing their job. Not MAY. SHOULD. I can't imagine why there is even any doubt about that. Rape is a horrendous crime, not matter what the circumstances might be. The punishment should be severe.
I was speaking in American english. In this context, "may" does not imply uncertainty.
|
You can't use "may warrant them" without thinking its uncertain. If you said "may they lose their job" it would be different but in the context it was indicating doubt.
|
The military can be pretty messed up. I could write a book about the things I've seen in my 8 years of service. However, there's a lot more to this than what is let on with this article.
This is more the case with the grunt forces (ie: army/marine corp), but there is a type of female that enlists that would probably be diagnosed with some disorder if they screened for it. I'm not saying the women listed in the article fit the criteria, nor is it the majority of females in the service, however it's a large enough contention that it's a big problem. These are the type that probably had turbulent childhoods, grew up without a father or with an abusive one, etc. Anyway, once in the military, this type of female gets passed around endlessly and voluntarily of course. I know it sounds bad, but ask anyone that has served and they will agree. Also, please don't misunderstand me. Diversity is great for the military, whether it's gender, race, religion, etc. However, you can't simply pretend everything is fine.
When accusations come up involving someone that is well known to be this type, it can be impossible to prove anything. Also, the entire accusation/convicting/acquittal process in and of itself is rather messed up. If you are accused, you are generally done for. Since the sex is typically not in dispute, just whether or not it was consensual or forced, it's nearly impossible to find someone innocent unless she recants the story. The only thing that can happen is the person is found guilty or it's dismissed as inconclusive (whatever it's called) with the accusation staying in the person's record.
It definitely seems odd that cases such as the few described in the article weren't investigated further, as the violent/random/forced rape (meaning not date rape) have always seemed to be pursued vigorously. It should also be noted that this is just the version provided by these few women, so this in no way constitutes a trend nor is it necessarily factual. Sexual assault is a real thing and obviously it's a problem, but there are SO MANY programs, people to report to, briefings, etc in place in the military that sweeping things under the rug is nearly impossible unless the victim allows it. I understand they were probably troubled, scared, etc and just allowed it to occurr that way, but then that would sort of fit the mental disorder, no? Basically, it's a shit sandwich. Also, the military has a habit of not treating people for their mental problems even if it was developed because of the military. They simply wash their hands of the people by chaptering them out. This is a separate issue altogether.
I think the easiest solution to this would simply be to take these cases out of the hands of the local chain of command, send it to the MPs or local police. I find the whole idea of the local command handling these types of crimes to be insane. When it's for less serious stuff, sure, but when it's these types of crimes, it should be handled outside of the local command. Also, I saw an article recently that DoD is now requiring O-6 officers to be the investigator or something of that sort. This could help a lot, as these high ranking officers have so much more to lose and they would generally have no relation to or knowledge of the people involved.
|
On April 18 2012 08:06 redviper wrote:
You can't use "may warrant them" without thinking its uncertain. If you said "may they lose their job" it would be different but in the context it was indicating doubt.
Like I said, context matters. People use words differently in different areas of the world. You're right that the denotation of "may" implies doubt, but the connotation doesn't always, especially in the ways it is sometimes used here in the US. In any event, why are you arguing semantics with me? I made my meaning clear to you in my first response.
On April 18 2012 08:09 acerockolla wrote:
The military can be pretty messed up. I could write a book about the things I've seen in my 8 years of service. However, there's a lot more to this than what it let on with this article.
This is more the case with the grunt forces (ie: army/marine corp), but there is a type of female that enlists that would probably be diagnosed with some disorder if they screened for it. I'm not saying the women listed in the article fit the criteria, nor is it the majority of females in the service, however it's a large enough contention that it's a big problem. These are the type that probably turbulent childhoods, grew up without a father or with an abusive one, etc. Anyway, once in the military, this type of female gets passed around endlessly and voluntarily of course. I know it sounds bad, but ask anyone that has served and they will agree. Also, please don't misunderstand me. Diversity is great for the military, whether it's gender, race, religion, etc. However, you can't simply pretend everything is fine.
When accusations come up involving someone that is well known to be this type, it can be impossible to prove anything. Also, the entire accusation/convicting/acquittal process in and of itself is rather messed up. If you are accused, you are generally done for. Since the sex is typically not in dispute, just whether or not it was consensual or forced, it's nearly impossible to find someone innocent unless she recants the story. The only thing that can happen is the person is found guilty or it's dismissed as inconclusive (whatever it's called) with the accusation staying in the person's record.
It definitely seems odd that cases such as the few described in the article weren't investigated further, as the violent/random/forced rape (meaning not date rape) have always seemed to be pursued vigorously. It should also be noted that this is just the version provided by these few women, so this in no way constitutes a trend nor is it necessarily factual. Sexual assault is a real thing and obviously it's a problem, but there are SO MANY programs, people to report to, briefings, etc in place in the military that sweeping things under the rug is nearly impossible unless the victim allows it. I understand they were probably troubled, scared, etc and just allowed it to occurr that way, but then that would sort of fit the mental disorder, no? Basically, it's a shit sandwich. Also, the military has a habit of not treating people for their mental problems even if it was developed because of the military. They simply wash their hands of the people by chaptering them out. This is a separate issue altogether.
I think the easiest solution to this would simply be to take these cases out of the hands of the local chain of command, send it to the MPs or local police. I find the whole idea of the local command handling these types of crimes to be insane. When it's for less serious stuff, sure, but when it's these types of crimes, it should be handled outside of the local command. Also, I saw an article recently that DoD is now requiring O-6 officers to be the investigator or something of that sort. This could help a lot, as these high ranking officers have so much more to lose and they would generally have no relation to or knowledge of the people involved.
Thanks for this post. The original story was, like most others, skewed to make the issue seem more prevalent than it is, while simplifying the backstory of why these rape accusations were ignored.
|
Let's organize some kind of support card or something.
|
SoCal8907 Posts
i know a woman that wants to enter the navy and she didn't quite believe me when i talked about the trauma that can be enduced on women in the armed forces (on top of several other concerns about exiting the military). a bunch of men that havent had sex for as long as theyve been on tour..something (regretably) is bound to give at some point.
as if it weren't enough that men are grimy enough to sexually abuse a woman, the military brushes it under the rug by calling them crazy? absolutely horrific.
i dont think she will wind up going into the navy in any case, but if she should..it would break my heart to see these atrocities happen to her and hit so close to home for me.
|
On April 18 2012 08:36 BluemoonSC wrote:
i know a woman that wants to enter the navy and she didn't quite believe me when i talked about the trauma that can be enduced on women in the armed forces (on top of several other concerns about exiting the military). a bunch of men that havent had sex for as long as theyve been on tour..something (regretably) is bound to give at some point.
as if it weren't enough that men are grimy enough to sexually abuse a woman, the military brushes it under the rug by calling them crazy? absolutely horrific.
i dont think she will wind up going into the navy in any case, but if she should..it would break my heart to see these atrocities happen to her and hit so close to home for me.
Let's not tar everyone with the same brush, eh? Yes, bad shit happens, and yes, there's fucked up people, but it's not the entire institution, or all the people. Not even the majority. A few bad apples give everyone a bad name. And while I understand that, in fact, certain chunks of the reputation are deserved enough that the only reasonable response is to disprove those parts for myself personally (or was, since I'm out now), when it comes to sexual assault and rape, it's a VERY distinct minority of cases where this happens at all, and getting swept under the rug is a minority of those cases.
|
SoCal8907 Posts
On April 18 2012 08:42 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 08:36 BluemoonSC wrote:
i know a woman that wants to enter the navy and she didn't quite believe me when i talked about the trauma that can be enduced on women in the armed forces (on top of several other concerns about exiting the military). a bunch of men that havent had sex for as long as theyve been on tour..something (regretably) is bound to give at some point.
as if it weren't enough that men are grimy enough to sexually abuse a woman, the military brushes it under the rug by calling them crazy? absolutely horrific.
i dont think she will wind up going into the navy in any case, but if she should..it would break my heart to see these atrocities happen to her and hit so close to home for me. Let's not tar everyone with the same brush, eh? Yes, bad shit happens, and yes, there's fucked up people, but it's not the entire institution, or all the people. Not even the majority. A few bad apples give everyone a bad name. And while I understand that, in fact, certain chunks of the reputation are deserved enough that the only reasonable response is to disprove those parts for myself personally (or was, since I'm out now), when it comes to sexual assault and rape, it's a VERY distinct minority of cases where this happens at all, and getting swept under the rug is a minority of those cases.
i understand what youre saying BUT, fact is: it shouldn't happen at all. and if it does happen, there should be a dishonorable discharge AND a lawsuit. not women (or even men!) being labelled as "crazy" and discharged.
|
On April 18 2012 08:45 BluemoonSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 08:42 JingleHell wrote:On April 18 2012 08:36 BluemoonSC wrote:
i know a woman that wants to enter the navy and she didn't quite believe me when i talked about the trauma that can be enduced on women in the armed forces (on top of several other concerns about exiting the military). a bunch of men that havent had sex for as long as theyve been on tour..something (regretably) is bound to give at some point.
as if it weren't enough that men are grimy enough to sexually abuse a woman, the military brushes it under the rug by calling them crazy? absolutely horrific.
i dont think she will wind up going into the navy in any case, but if she should..it would break my heart to see these atrocities happen to her and hit so close to home for me. Let's not tar everyone with the same brush, eh? Yes, bad shit happens, and yes, there's fucked up people, but it's not the entire institution, or all the people. Not even the majority. A few bad apples give everyone a bad name. And while I understand that, in fact, certain chunks of the reputation are deserved enough that the only reasonable response is to disprove those parts for myself personally (or was, since I'm out now), when it comes to sexual assault and rape, it's a VERY distinct minority of cases where this happens at all, and getting swept under the rug is a minority of those cases. i understand what youre saying BUT, fact is: it shouldn't happen at all. and if it does happen, there should be a dishonorable discharge AND a lawsuit. not women (or even men!) being labelled as "crazy" and discharged.
I'm not denying that there should be a harsh punishment. I'm pointing out that usually there is. The fringe cases shouldn't be used to attack the whole group. It's no different than saying all blacks are thieves, or all hispanics in the USA are illegal. People overreacting to the sensationalism is part of the problem.
And fact, it happens outside the military too, where the pressures of combat aren't even an issue. And there's probably plenty of civilian cases where nothing ever comes of it.
|
Reading through this entire thread, it's pretty obvious not a lot of you have spent time around the military. Thank you for the people who posted with actual knowledge instead of a flame and bash fest. Saying we're all crazy because we enlisted or all these terrible things get swept under the rug all the time is just insane. Because the media blows these things out of the water, yes obviously it happens a few times. But you have no idea the amount of programs and help that there is for rape cases and situation, and basically every problem you can think of. Yes this is a terrible thing to happen to anybody, but honestly, is it this big of an issue? I've known a lot of people who were in the military, are in the military now, and I myself am as well. Typical of the internet for people to make posts full of ignorance and jump on the backwagon before doing any actual research or have prior knowledge. It's honeslty laughable.
First of all, the earlier poster was right about women doing this willingly, there's so many times where they deploy to Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere people can't be with their significant others or spouses, they get pregnant while on deployment. And honestly, there's women who just join the military TO get pregnant because the government will take care of them. I can't even count how many women I've seen or known about that will get pregnant before every deployment until they get discharged. Keep blaming our training and our craziness, be my guest. Also, all Navy ships go to foreign ports multiple times a deployment unless its a submarine, where there aren't women anyways. So if you want to say that's the reason women get raped on ships, that's literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Blame it on sex deprivation? Really? Because you've never heard of guys getting off ships and finding brothels or bars to pick up women?
|
On April 18 2012 08:57 tRavE wrote:
Reading through this entire thread, it's pretty obvious not a lot of you have spent time around the military. Thank you for the people who posted with actual knowledge instead of a flame and bash fest. Saying we're all crazy because we enlisted or all these terrible things get swept under the rug all the time is just insane. Because the media blows these things out of the water, yes obviously it happens a few times. But you have no idea the amount of programs and help that there is for rape cases and situation, and basically every problem you can think of. Yes this is a terrible thing to happen to anybody, but honestly, is it this big of an issue? I've known a lot of people who were in the military, are in the military now, and I myself am as well. Typical of the internet for people to make posts full of ignorance and jump on the backwagon before doing any actual research or have prior knowledge. It's honeslty laughable.
First of all, the earlier poster was right about women doing this willingly, there's so many times where they deploy to Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere people can't be with their significant others or spouses, they get pregnant while on deployment. And honestly, there's women who just join the military TO get pregnant because the government will take care of them. I can't even count how many women I've seen or known about that will get pregnant before every deployment until they get discharged. Keep blaming our training and our craziness, be my guest. Also, all Navy ships go to foreign ports multiple times a deployment unless its a submarine, where there aren't women anyways. So if you want to say that's the reason women get raped on ships, that's literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Blame it on sex deprivation? Really? Because you've never heard of guys getting off ships and finding brothels or bars to pick up women?
Yes, I completely agree. We in the service are all bloodthirsty monsters with no sense of humanity, trained to ignore all sorts of morality. I'm not sure if people should even see us as human fucking beings anymore with our own hopes, dreams, viewpoints, and critical thinking skills. Nope, we're all one way. All day, e'rryday. And all these terrible things get swept under the rug all the fucking time, because hey! It's reported on the news right? It must happen all the fucking time with no punishment!
I have also been brainwashed to be born to kill, who just can't wait to dismember my enemies with my bear hands and drink their blood. We especially love eating babies. Amirite?
|
If the stories they're telling are true then I feel this way:
Fucking retarded frat-boy mentalities that let this shit slide disgust me.
If the stories they're telling are untrue then I feel this way:
C**TS.
Either way, people do messed up things T_T
|
On April 17 2012 23:48 Kickboxer wrote:
Why do women need to be in the army, again? I'd like to hear some strong arguments for this, apart from the trendy platitudes on how we're exactly the same. I can give you some pretty hefty ones against it. Firstly, putting a small number of females within reach of a large group of testosterone-filled, sex starved young men who are trained to kill each other is asking for rape. If that sounds insulting to your worldview, you will at least have to admit it is disastrous to morale and the dynamic of relationships at an army base - and especially in combat. Secondly, I'd wager that period and the mental and physical changes that come with it present an inconvenience that cannot be justified in life-or-death situations. Most men can barely handle this when it is their girlfriend spazzing out. Thirdly, women fail at unarmed combat against men, period. I know this because I've been doing k-1 for years, and sparring a much more skilled woman close to your weight is laughable. The term "manhandled" wasn't invented by sexists. Consequently, they also fail at keeping up with male soldiers in any kind of exhausting physical situation, or one that requires strength.
I will never, ever understand why women lobby for such things. You don't see men fighting for their right to give birth to children or breast-feed them. Some roles were simply meant for one sex or the other. I think we can all guess which sex was built for combat...
These women willingly put themselves in a situation where they are surrounded by young males who are trained to be violent and aggressive, and who are absolutely deprived of sex, the strongest urge produced by the male brain. Then, they are unable to fend them off in a physical confrontation although fighting is supposed to be their job. Well, doh.
User was temp banned for this post.
I kinda understand the "women should not be in the military" issue in this post, there is certainly some truth to it given the nature of the objectives and general situation in the military. But I think there should be a higher moral standard for things like this, which should translate to the protection of everyone, regardless of the factors. Moreover, I understand there are a lot of different units in the military other than those who are engaged in ground combat, for example those dealing with medicals, logistics, communication, etc. But even if a woman is part of the "sex-deprived, ready to kill" men, it is no excuse for sexual abuse.
|
On April 17 2012 21:19 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:06 Kuni wrote:On April 17 2012 19:25 Bobgrimly wrote:
I think this issue is silly to discuss. You put women ... amongst people trained to ignore morals... and then act surprised when the standard results that have been happening for hundreds upon thousands of years happens.
How very true. Also as stated in the first post I believe, rape accusations do not need witnesses or anything else, just the testimony of the "victim". Maybe false accusations in the military are as common as outside of it, so the superiors treat those with a grain of salt. This line of thought could make some sense if, you know, there was any logic in women doing something that, as seen by this and multiple other articles, only causes them more harm.Aside from petty, unrealistic dramatic motives like love related revenge, they have absolutely nothing to gain from reporting a rape, quite the contrary, so pardon me if I remain skeptical about these accusations being untrue.
Trying to get back at someone is not unheard of. I would have faced maybe similar problems and false accusations in the past, if one of my ex-girlfriends hadn't lived in another country. I'm not saying that there's a huge percentage of fakes, however, if there is at least 1 fake, then if you are approached, you might think twice before jumping on the bandwagon, especially if you're in the military.
|
On April 18 2012 10:38 Man with a Plan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:48 Kickboxer wrote:
Why do women need to be in the army, again? I'd like to hear some strong arguments for this, apart from the trendy platitudes on how we're exactly the same. I can give you some pretty hefty ones against it. Firstly, putting a small number of females within reach of a large group of testosterone-filled, sex starved young men who are trained to kill each other is asking for rape. If that sounds insulting to your worldview, you will at least have to admit it is disastrous to morale and the dynamic of relationships at an army base - and especially in combat. Secondly, I'd wager that period and the mental and physical changes that come with it present an inconvenience that cannot be justified in life-or-death situations. Most men can barely handle this when it is their girlfriend spazzing out. Thirdly, women fail at unarmed combat against men, period. I know this because I've been doing k-1 for years, and sparring a much more skilled woman close to your weight is laughable. The term "manhandled" wasn't invented by sexists. Consequently, they also fail at keeping up with male soldiers in any kind of exhausting physical situation, or one that requires strength.
I will never, ever understand why women lobby for such things. You don't see men fighting for their right to give birth to children or breast-feed them. Some roles were simply meant for one sex or the other. I think we can all guess which sex was built for combat...
These women willingly put themselves in a situation where they are surrounded by young males who are trained to be violent and aggressive, and who are absolutely deprived of sex, the strongest urge produced by the male brain. Then, they are unable to fend them off in a physical confrontation although fighting is supposed to be their job. Well, doh.
User was temp banned for this post. I kinda understand the "women should not be in the military" issue in this post, there is certainly some truth to it given the nature of the objectives and general situation in the military. But I think there should be a higher moral standard for things like this, which should translate to the protection of everyone, regardless of the factors. Moreover, I understand there are a lot of different units in the military other than those who are engaged in ground combat, for example those dealing with medicals, logistics, communication, etc. But even if a woman is part of the "sex-deprived, ready to kill" men, it is no excuse for sexual abuse.
You are understanding what he's conveying, but it's based on shitty logic. This isn't the year 1000 BC where we are using physical strength to take down our opponents. Maybe he could beat a female soldier in unarmed combat, but she would have ended his life long before that became relevant. Also, the sex-deprived, ready to kill crap is also that: crap. Real servicemen and women are disciplined. Our most highly trained killers (SF/SEALS/Recon/etc) are the most humble and nicest people you'll ever meet. The people who get reported on in the media for doing shitty things are the abberation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
