Women in the army.

[Omzdog]

To begin, I don't claim to speak for all manhood, I'm just noting that the manhood inside me is speaking for me.. as a man.

Insisting that a woman go first is not rude or insulting nor self-centered. It is not pushing away help either. The man should acknowledge his assumed disposition to women, and put herself beyond himself. Quite the opposite of being ego-centric. Non of this has to do with 'hooking up with chicks'. Just simple rules of manly etiquette. All men should know this.

[DameGreyWulf]

Except that's not how it works. Refusing someone's help on the grounds of their gender is extremely insulting and far from falling under etiquette.
No man needs or is required to adhere to old, backwards thinking, just as no woman should. Freedom for all, let individuality rule, and death to gender roles and chivalry, down with sexism.


I'm going to assume you're just yanking my chain though, now.

[Omzdog]

So you find a man insisting that a woman go first insulting because he implies being sexist because he identifies that this woman is weak and should act according to gender roles?

Death to gender roles? Death to observing and celebrating the difference between man and woman?

Death to chivalry? Death to the serene relationship of man and woman?



I admire your philosophy (especially elevating the person's individuality, a philosophy I, myself, understand. Something similar to existentialism and transcendentalism right?) but it does not adhere to social norms in the sense you use it in.

This is the problem with ye activist liberals (generalizing). Your philosophies are perfect on paper. Spot on. But in practicality and when put into action they work for shit and all falls to pieces.

This is not from a conservative stand point, simply just an independent one.



Edit:
Enough debating for a day. I've been yanking your chains for the past 10 pages.

[DameGreyWulf]

I find it insulting if he refused to go through a door a woman held for him. If he got there first and held it, I've got nothing to judge him on. But yes, it's insulting to try and make him and her adhere to gender roles.

Yes, death to gender roles. Gender roles aren't celebrating differences, they're imposing them. There's a difference between saying "I'm proud to have a penis" and "I have a penis, therefore I should do what has been imposed upon me"
Gender roles set us back and take a shit on individuality. Gender roles are what made women delicate housewives and men expendable nothings. Gender roles are what make people not matter. Gender roles is sexism put into practice. Gender roles tell me I'm supposed to be in make up and dresses, and tell my gay friend he can't wear make up or dresses (or like men, for that matter).

Chivalry is not a serene relationship. It is a sexist one that adheres to gender roles. Courtesy without predetermined judgment, treating someone as an equal, births serene relationships.


Social norms are changing all the time. It wasn't considered right for women to wear jeans, it was against their gender role, but now they can! It wasn't considered a social norm to have a black friend, now lots of people have friends of multiple races!
It's hard to even DEFINE a social norm in a free society. You'll see wherever you go there are multiple kinds of people, it's practically impossible to determine which of these people are "normal." There are some obvious signs, like say if someone is extremely smelly and unkempt, you'd say that wasn't normal, but it's usually not so black and white.

[edit]
Damn you and your soul.

[Omzdog]

I'm proud to have a penis

This shall be sigged.

[DameGreyWulf]

 
 

[Kithas]

Yes, I think that women should be allowed to fight in frontline combat.  Yes, generally men try to protect women, but honestly when a lady soldier is there with you in a fox-hole you're not gonna be thinking about her as a lady.  Just a fellow soldier.  Men die to protect each other every day in the military, it wouldn't change much if you threw some gals into the mix.  Besides, as far as I'm concerned everybody should fight.  From what I understand from my time in the Army the only reason they weren't allowing women on the front line is because they felt that the enemy could do way more horrible things to a woman than they would be willing to do to a man if they were captured.  Think rape.  Most enemy soldiers won't rape a dude, but the chicks are fair game.  Being tortured is bad, but it's physical for the most part.  I guess women have a higher potential to come out of that situation all fucked in the head as well.  That's what I was told anyway.  I still think they should be allowed to fight.

[DameGreyWulf]

Depends on your definition of rape. I think something like being sodomized with a poll might count as rape, which may be something they'd do, but I dunno. I guess a rape thing would make sense, at least more sense than anything else here.


And actually I've heard women have a higher stress tolerance than men; ie they'd NOT be prone to get more 'fucked up" by war.
It doesn't seem like it today, but think of the abusive shit we've had to deal with and it makes sense.

However, I don't have a citation for that. If someone could provide it, or at least redirect me to what I'm mistaking (meaning, something related but not what I think), please do so.

[LordOfShadows]

I personally like the Israeli system, where if the woman requests a combat assignment, and can pass the exact same tests as the men, she gets it in a mixed unit. This way the men that feel they can't serve alongside women get shuffled to a non-mixed unit, and most of the women are assigned to non-combat roles. Bear in mind that the IDF is mostly people on mandatory army service.

[Kithas]

From what I understand, yes, women have a higher tolerance for stress than men.  But I'm not talking about the killing and the dying, I'm talking about being tortured, raped and humiliated by enemy soldiers messing with them emotionally.  Considering the wars that America is now involved in, and the "tolerance" for women, especially women soldiers, that the enemy soldiers have (look it up if you don't believe Arabic countries have a somewhat less than tolerant view of women) I think there is a higher potentiality for those sorts of behaviors.  And I said "most" enemy soldiers won't rape a man.  I think you mostly find ramming a pole us someone's ass in American prisons, not POW camps in Iraq.  But then, I've never been a POW in Iraq.  If I was I think I'd be more worried about being shot in the head or having my head chopped off on camera than being raped with a broomstick.  That might just be me though.

[Night Ninja]

Merentha, hurry up and post a scathing rebuttal of Omzdog and CountArtha already.

[DameGreyWulf]

Well, penises are a target of insult in Arabic, as far as I know, so something may be done to them in that way. Perhaps being de-manned? And you must remember that most enemies don't consider the enemy to have rights, so ramming a pole in the ass seems quite like something you'd do to an inhuman.
Then again, like you, not a lot I can really say.

And I was also referring to that, especially with when I brought up the abuses women have had to suffer through the years. It used to be okay to do those things to us, and still is okay in some places, so we might be less affected by it.
But, you have reminded me of how women are given more freedoms here, so I suppose they could be more affected by such things from the pure simple fact of it no longer being something acceptable here.
Funny how society affects the psyche.
I suppose it could be more affecting considering the chance of pregnancy, because I doubt a rapist is going to take the time to put on a condom, let alone someone purposely trying to humiliate you with rape as a form of prisoner torture.

I think it's not because of the fact they're women there's a higher chance, though. I think it's because they'd be considered nonhumans. So it's okay to rape them and brutalize them. Typically I would think they get killed afterward. Raped women are usually killed, I think, in those countries. Honour killing.
In Uganda, rape is used to try and correct homosexuality, I think this could be working along the same lines.

[Papa Lazarou]

Death to gender roles? Death to observing and celebrating the difference between man and woman?

Celebrate the differences between individuals if you must. Sex is irrelevant.

[Merentha]

He doesn't need to have worked in emergency services to say that. And you can compare the emergency service to the military because they are both institutions giving great physical and mental toll. As far as anything else, idk.

Fun fact:  I have served in EMS.  Part of the reason women became more eligible for EMS is that the roles changed.  Prehospital medicine used to consist of people who would drive up very fast, grab an injured person with little care for their actual injuries, and drive away really fast.  Now, paramedics are actual professionals who can actually accomplish quite a bit on scene, so the need for brute force has decreased.

I worked in an ambulance company specializing in bariatric transport:  basically, transporting morbidly obese patients.  I'm slightly over 6ft ( 2m) tall and weigh about 145 (65kg).  Neither I, nor any female partners I had, had trouble carrying or caring for patients.  In a company specializing in transporting obese patients.  I once was involved with transporting a woman weighing almost 800 lbs.  Five people, including myself, a female nurse, two female EMTs, and a large male transported her.  Would we have needed any fewer people if any or all of those women had been male?  Absolutely not. Men, and women, called for lift assists equally.   I have never, under any circumstances, felt that a female partner was a liability because she was a woman.  Ever.  There are a very, very select few cases in which a woman will likely be less able to care for a patient because of strength issues.  If that is your worry, then ban every male in EMS who isn't capable of lifting and carrying that amount. 

As for mental toll:  excuse me?  Are you implying that women are less mentally capable of...anything?  Because with physical strength, at least you had some kind of actual possible point. 

From what I understand from my time in the Army the only reason they weren't allowing women on the front line is because they felt that the enemy could do way more horrible things to a woman than they would be willing to do to a man if they were captured.  Think rape.

Yeah, this argument is kinda ******** retarded.  "We'd let our women sign up to be placed in danger of death if only they didn't have a chance to be raped if captured." 

Depends on your definition of rape. I think something like being sodomized with a poll might count as rape, which may be something they'd do, but I dunno. I guess a rape thing would make sense, at least more sense than anything else here.\

Now if only the US Army wasn't so cartoonishly evil that some estimated 1/3rd of female soldiers didn't report being raped by their own "comrades in arms."  At the least, I'm partially against integrated units in part because the military does require an exceptional amount of trust in the people you're serving with.  If women can't trust the males they serve with, how are they supposed to do their jobs properly?  Also, speaking of rape:  males rape.  Women are not responsible for being raped.  Women in the military are raped far more than civilian women.  Why?

[DameGreyWulf]

I can't answer that officially.
Within friendly sights, I would say it could stem from trying to teach the women "their place" or thinking because they're there, they're game and should accept it. Rape is typically about domination and/or being the sort of person who can't accept not getting what they want.

Enemy wise, I would repeat the "teaching women their place" thing, and/or (depending on the place) just being another way to punish/humiliate the soldier. Which is why I included a male could also be subjected to such things, and that it wasn't necessarily them being women that has to do with it.

Other than that I've nothing to say to your comment towards me. It's a terrible thing.