Most people aren't aware of this, but the United States women are not allowed in combat roles in the military. They are limited to non-combat roles, such as driving vehicles, establishing bases, and engineering, just to name a few. I for one am against this, I believe that women are every-bit as capable as men. Sure, most women may be physically weaker than most men, and sure it's possible they could go on their period in the middle of a mission, or a relationship may form between two soldiers, add on to that that males are often more protective of women than they are of other men, and terrorists like to torture females more than they do males (including rape and sexual abuse), plus terrorists think of women as inferior and are less likely to surrender to a female than they would a male.
Despite these "drawbacks," I'm still completely for full rights for women serving in the US military. What are your thoughts on this?
I'm all for women in combat so long as they adhere to the same standards that men must adhered to when it comes to physical strength, birth control, behavior and mannerism, self-sufficiency, tactical and other abilities. (yes, I said physical - a minority of women are on the same physical level as men - thus - why prevent them from serving if they could purely be a benefit?)
Equality is equality - tits or no tits.
The majority of women can't cut it in this fashion - but the few who can ARE in the thick of things as they should be.
Those women *and men* who cant cut it simply don't make it - and would someone really want another who *didn't quite cut it* to be *there anyway?* - I say no.
But your concern of rape is ridiculous - it's not a woman's fault that some men can't keep it in their pants :shrug: I don't feel that those who are maltreated (in general - not just in particular to women and the issue of rape) should be limited because of how *others mistreat them.* - Nor should said rapists get a pass because of their rank or station in their platoon, etc. They should get the BOOT out - if they want to STAY in they should behave and control their selves. The majority of militant training has to do with CONTROLLING yourself: you fear, emotion, nature's call to piss and ****, and your shakes and hams. . . it's all about control. If someone can't control some primitive urges then do you WANT them to be actually making more serious and life-altering decisions for others? I, again, say no.
The only reason why rape continues to be a problem in the ranks is because it's just ignored and not attacked head-on seriously for the crime that it is. . . it's very wishy-washy and instead of proactively preventing it, the military chooses to just try to avoid it by denying some very capable women the position they've earned (combat).
And the notion that we should consider *our enemies* consideration, lack or respect or possible maltreatment of OUR soldiers is idiocracy and you know it. THEY should have no sway over our forces: how we man our troops, how we dispatch arm and detail out service-duties.
The very suggestion that our enemies are being taken into consideration is absolute nonsense - anyone who abides by this line of thought needs a bottle, bib and a burp.