Sexual Equality

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo

Should we hire women just because of sexual equality? what if she has less experience than a man? do you want your business to run less efficiently just because you want more equality in the work place?

no i dont think we should hire women just because of sexual equality but most women are hired over men because male bosses tend to use them as a sexual tool in the workplace.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by wedge2211

My ex-girlfriend goes to an all-women's college. THOSE I can't stand, along with men's schools. Why should anyone believe that the sexes need to be segregated in education? By doing that, you implicitly admit that the sexes are unequal, one way or the other, which I believe is totally unacceptable.

those schools have to do more with religion. they think that co-ed or just men-women colleges lead to pre-marital sex:rolleyes: silly christians (no offence but they tend to be catholic schools, baptist schools, or presbyterian schools)

[ioshee]

Originally posted by Bonedemon

You could consider pregnancy as draft. I mean most women get 2-3 children. That is 12-18 months of trouble with your body. The first three months aren´t bad, or so I´ve been told. After that the mother has to breast-feed and so on. In the US army there are women everywhere except in the combat parts.

 

What are you talking about?!? Do you know what a draft is?

 

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

... also many male (usually over the age of 36) treat all women of the work place as sexual objects infact many women are hired because of their looks and not their talent or skills....

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

no i dont think we should hire women just because of sexual equality but most women are hired over men because male bosses tend to use them as a sexual tool in the workplace.

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

those schools have to do more with religion. they think that co-ed or just men-women colleges lead to pre-marital sex:rolleyes: silly christians (no offence but they tend to be catholic schools, baptist schools, or presbyterian schools)

 

InsaneSith, you tend to over-generalize A LOT. Weren’t you one of the people criticizing CagedCrado for his generalizations of Native Americans? How are you any different?

[ZBomber]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

those schools have to do more with religion. they think that co-ed or just men-women colleges lead to pre-marital sex:rolleyes: silly christians (no offence but they tend to be catholic schools, baptist schools, or presbyterian schools)

 

i dn't blame them. Condoms don't always work man.

[Thrackan Solo]

no i dont think we should hire women just because of sexual equality but most women are hired over men because male bosses tend to use them as a sexual tool in the workplace.

 

I agree with you there but not all men hire women just to use them, my dad hires women, and hes happily married he doesnt fool around with them.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo

I agree with you there but not all men hire women just to use them, my dad hires women, and hes happily married he doesnt fool around with them.

that why i say some. not all there is a difference between what i siad and the word all. and im very glad that your father is a gentlemen that doesnt hire women just as tools. and to you ioshee i didnt generalize i stated statistics.

[Thrackan Solo]

hey insane there is no some in your statement you said most women are hired over men for tools.

[El Sitherino]

well many in the same sense as some.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by ZBomber

i dn't blame them. Condoms don't always work man.

 

No. Only in 96% That leaves just a meagre 4% to have their pregnancy terminated.

 

InsaneSith, you tend to over-generalize A LOT. Weren’t you one of the people criticizing CagedCrado for his generalizations of Native Americans? How are you any different?

 

He's got the statistics backing him.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I'm for equality too, but women have to give too.

 

For example the draft. Why exactly wouldn't women be drafted? Women

 

• Have better balance,
  
• Strategic thinking, and
  
• Ability to endure hardships
  

than men, meaning they're just as likely candidates. Several navies that allow women to join features submarines and surface vessels commanded by women, on boats with majorities of men. Meaning that a woman can perfectly well outrank a bunch of men. Heck, some of the most dangerous Caribbean pirates were women! Oh, and have you ever played an RTS game against a girl;)?

 

Next, sexual abuse and the likes. You know a woman can get away with staring and sometimes even stalking a good deal easier than a guy.

 

Should we hire women just because of sexual equality? what if she has less experience than a man? do you want your business to run less efficiently just because you want more equality in the work place?

No. What I want is that people look away from gender when they hire people. Let's say I have two candidates with almost identical resumes. Pick the one with the best resume, not the one with the cutest body.

 

You could consider pregnancy as draft. I mean most women get 2-3 children. That is 12-18 months of trouble with your body. The first three months aren´t bad, or so I´ve been told. After that the mother has to breast-feed and so on. In the US army there are women everywhere except in the combat parts.

Er.. drafting means to join the armed forces for a period of time. The government does it to increase army strenght, not to torture you. You can't say "okay, I don't have to join the navy because I've already been in pain". Having a baby doesn't exactly bring a submarine anywhere:).

 

IMO, the fact that girls aren't drafted is one of the most sexist problems in society. Think: How long would womens' right movements tolerate it if girls had to do something that guys didn't have to do?

 

Funny, I was about to bring that up myself. I REALLY wish that the states of America could pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which would essentially alter the Constitution/Amendments to state "men and women" or "citizens" in all cases where it currently says, "men."

I agree, but "men and women" sounds to informal, and citizens could imply (I know you didn't mean it that way) that all non- US citizens living in the States are created differently (well, we are, but still:p). What about "humans"?

 

BTW, I believe "man" is an old way of saying "human", as in "mankind" instead of "humankind", so the constitution could meaning "humans", maybe? Anyone know?

 

My ex-girlfriend goes to an all-women's college. THOSE I can't stand

Along with segregated gym classes, like at my school.

[munik]

Anyone who thinks that women should be included in the draft have never had to serve with women. It may sound like such a great idea while you sit in your plush sofa, but you may think differently when you are the one that has to pick up their slack and carry their dead weight.

 

Putting women on submarines sounds like one of the most counter-productive ideas I've heard in a long time. Submarines have been equiped with nuclear engines and large food stores so they can remain at sea for months upon months upon months. Putting a woman on board would totally defeat this. The sub would have to be altered to accomodate seperate quarters, heads, etc. for women. Hardly a good idea. What good is it to have a submarine capable of being submerged for months if you have to constantly dock so you can switch out your pregnant crew members? I'm not a Navy man, but maybe there is one here you can tell you how long after a ship leaves dock before the female crew members get knocked up. I'm willing to wager it's the same length of time a pregnancy test says is the earliest it can detect pregnancy.

[XWING5]

Originally posted by munik

Anyone who thinks that women should be included in the draft have never had to serve with women. It may sound like such a great idea while you sit in your plush sofa, but you may think differently when you are the one that has to pick up their slack and carry their dead weight.

 

Putting women on submarines sounds like one of the most counter-productive ideas I've heard in a long time. Submarines have been equiped with nuclear engines and large food stores so they can remain at sea for months upon months upon months. Putting a woman on board would totally defeat this. The sub would have to be altered to accomodate seperate quarters, heads, etc. for women. Hardly a good idea. What good is it to have a submarine capable of being submerged for months if you have to constantly dock so you can switch out your pregnant crew members? I'm not a Navy man, but maybe there is one here you can tell you how long after a ship leaves dock before the female crew members get knocked up. I'm willing to wager it's the same length of time a pregnancy test says is the earliest it can detect pregnancy.

 

Whoa, back up just a sec. That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. I am a female in the Army and I am here to tell you, that NO ONE picks up my dead weight. Now obviously, logistically, it would not be smart to draft a female to work on a sub, it would be comparable to drafting a female to the infantry. However, I know for a fact that the Navy has other jobs. You've seen the commercials advertising the 212 ways to be a soldier in the Army. Are you saying women can't work in Commanding roles for MI, MP, Quartermaster, Pilot, etc? There are so many support elements that could be filled, that need to be filled, and would be filled successfully by women. And you know, if the sailors can't stay away from the female on a sub, maybe they both need to be kicked off the sub and go to some profesionalism classes.

If women want equality, then they need to get it on all fronts. Not just the pick and choose cause the femi-nazis out there decide on. And that includes miltary service. There are many physical and physiological differences that will always have to be accounted for and there will never be total equality for any group (because no one is perfect), but it has been getting better, and it always will.

[C'jais]

First of all, women do indeed serve a role in the army. While I don't think they can be placed in direct front-line ground forces, they are serving in support roles, aboard warships and as pilots - "Five-by-five, we're in the pipe". In fact, I've heard of a female F15 pilot. Pretty cool.

 

There are a number of problems with women in ground forces:

 

Soldiers are expected, and sometimes required to go for several weeks without proper bathing and hygeine. While men will stink like a pig, women have the additional problem of yeast infections.

 

Most men are raised to protect and take care of females first and foremost. If I were to see a wounded female in my squad and was required to proceed with the objectives at hand, I'd hesitate. I'd probably place a lot of attention on the woman to make sure she was okay. Granted, this attitude can change, but I don't see it doing it for a long time.

 

Then there's the problem with female POWs getting raped. Of course, things are being done to male POWs that are equally gruesome, but the public doesn't make that distinction.

 

Physical strengh. Men are stronger, for a reason. A male soldier can haul a wounded soldier out of the the line of fire, but I doubt most females would be capable of doing this. Really, while it may sound sexist, it is a problem in this case.

 

Eagle, I don't think females have better balance or strategic thinking. It's said that women are better at "multi-tasking", while men are better at concentrating. I don't know what to believe anymore.

 

 

EDIT: Oops! Saw the nudity hidden in that image. Link removed.

 

BTW, females are usually better pilots than men, and their short height makes for less strain when facing high G.

 

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/waterman.html

[XWING5]

I can't really argue with you too much there C'Jais. I don't think that men are ready to fight amongst women on the battlefield. Hell, in some cases they won't fight with other men (but that is a whole other thread.) But I gotta say, in all honesty (and I am not for women fighting infantry as the situation stands), I have seen women who could do the job, and plenty of men who I wouldn't want next to me in a foxhole. Everything is relative to the person. You know how firemen must pass a sort of physically strenuous entrance exam? Well, that could be done with the Infantry. If you measure up, male or female, you are in. However, for the reasons you mentioned, it is just not the time. I will never be allowed to join Special Forces. My daughter wouldn't be able to (and I wouldn't want her to), but maybe the grandkids. Equality has been a long time coming, but it is constantly changing. I am just thankful for what we are allowed to do as compared to when my mom was growing up.

 

PS I don't actually have a daughter, but hypothetically I still wouldn't want her on the front lines. Scares me to death that she might be out there, so I understand society as a whole not ready to send their wives or daughters out there.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Eagle, I don't think females have better balance or strategic thinking.

Okay, but it would seem they do. They get into skiing a bit faster than guys, and they tend to fall less.

 

But I might be wrong:).

 

Munik, did you watch JAG by any chance? You sound like you're quoting that guy opposing the female character joining that sub.. one of the only episodes I ever saw:).

 

Hmm... you know, the Norwegian navy has women in our subs as far as I know, but we don't have any ICBM Missile Subs (thank my God:)) that are intended to stay down for months.

 

However, we do send submarines with girls on them on missions far from home (we sent a sub with a woman on it to Afghanistan, for example). How we do it, I don't know, but what I do know is it doesn't take much to "add separate quarters". Maybe all they do is add this temporary wall separating the male's beds from the females' beds.

 

My point is, it's perfectly possible. Why? It's being done. We also have women in infantry divisions, as far as I know.

 

The pregnancy argument is ridiculous. Just ban sex on submarines. If you get pregnant, you and your lover(s) are thrown headfirst out in the first port you get to, then shipped home. Zero tolerance.

 

Girls are raped

Well, you sign up for war knowing you can get killed. Isn't that almost as bad, or worse (I'd rather get killed than abused)? And men are sexually abused too, aren't they?

[XWING5]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

If you get pregnant, you and your lover(s) are thrown headfirst out in the first port you get to, then shipped home. Zero tolerance.

 

Hahahahahaha. Good plan!

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Okay, but it would seem they do. They get into skiing a bit faster than guys, and they tend to fall less.

 

I don't have much to compare with, but it took my mother a long time to learn skiing, and the only reason she doesn't fall much is because she's always being extra-careful never to do anything even remotely wild on skis.

 

My point is, it's perfectly possible. Why? It's being done. We also have women in infantry divisions, as far as I know.

 

Yup, but they're there of their own free will, right? They aren't being drafted into infantry divisions. Still, I think you're talking about females in support roles, logistics etc. Those are an invaluable part of the military.

 

Well, you sign up for war knowing you can get killed. Isn't that almost as bad, or worse (I'd rather get killed than abused)? And men are sexually abused too, aren't they?

 

Hehe, I know what you mean, man.

 

But still, to the public, getting raped ranks as one of the worst crimes, sometimes even worse than getting outright killed.

 

Imagine the reaction of the public if your entire squad was captured by the enemy - half of it were women. Now, all the women are getting raped, and all the men are getting their teeth pulled out without anaesthetics. Which gender gets the most attention, do you think? And then, imagine if it those women had "just" got killed instead - that wouldn't have been much of a fuss, would it?

 

Simply put, the public isn't ready to see this kind of thing happening to their neighbor's daughter.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by XWING5

I can't really argue with you too much there C'Jais. I don't think that men are ready to fight amongst women on the battlefield. Hell, in some cases they won't fight with other men (but that is a whole other thread.) But I gotta say, in all honesty (and I am not for women fighting infantry as the situation stands), I have seen women who could do the job, and plenty of men who I wouldn't want next to me in a foxhole. Everything is relative to the person. You know how firemen must pass a sort of physically strenuous entrance exam? Well, that could be done with the Infantry. If you measure up, male or female, you are in.

 

No point arguing here, no - I agree very much.

 

Of course there are women who'd be capable of running away from the frontline with her fellow soldier on the back, and of course there are men who would panic when in a trench for the first time. But in general, it's rare. Women in general are just not built to fight as much as a man is, but there are plenty of exceptions. And if you're one of the exceptions, I can't see what's stopping you.

 

But then again, there are a number of issues with establishing this test of sorts, and I can't see it working in a time where the country needs a lot of soldiers - many men would end up not passing the test, and even more women. A lot of waste, in this regard. Better to let all the men there's available be molded into soldiers the best way possible.

[munik]

Originally posted by XWING5

However, I know for a fact that the Navy has other jobs. You've seen the commercials advertising the 212 ways to be a soldier in the Army. Are you saying women can't work in Commanding roles for MI, MP, Quartermaster, Pilot, etc? There are so many support elements that could be filled, that need to be filled, and would be filled successfully by women.

If you are drafted, you are sent to whatever branch needs you. Now, I don't know about the Army, but I know that in the Marine Corps, every Marine is a Rifleman, first and foremost. Your occupation is secondary. You may have been able to carry your weight, but that does not hold true across the board. Every run we did, every hump, every physically demanding excercise, our women always were in the back with the dropouts. Everytime. Now, I'm not saying women cannot serve. I'm saying that they cannot serve in a combat role, support or otherwise. Draft women if you want, but stick them in the airforce or something. They would still be in an unequal position.

 

Originally posted by XWING5

And you know, if the sailors can't stay away from the female on a sub, maybe they both need to be kicked off the sub and go to some profesionalism classes.

I reckon you are of a decent age. Are you suggesting that it's unprofessional to have sex? Everyone has sex, to deny that and call it unprofessional is like calling it a sin. Do you think that if you put 150 men and 10 women in a very, very confined space for the better part of half a year that they should not have sex? Just sit around, rubbing one out?

 

Originally posted by C'jais

Most men are raised to protect and take care of females first and foremost. If I were to see a wounded female in my squad and was required to proceed with the objectives at hand, I'd hesitate. I'd probably place a lot of attention on the woman to make sure she was okay. Granted, this attitude can change, but I don't see it doing it for a long time.

I believe that your training would guide you through such a situation. Running away and fear are also instinct for humans, and that is something that combat training acknowledges and attempts to overcome. I don't think I would falter on the sole basis that it was a woman who got killed or injured.

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

...ICBM Missile Subs...

I know what you are talking about, but I must say that there aren't such things as ICBM Subs. Submarines are not considered continents. They carry ballistic missiles, not icbms.

[XWING5]

I reckon you are of a decent age. Are you suggesting that it's unprofessional to have sex? Everyone has sex, to deny that and call it unprofessional is like calling it a sin. Do you think that if you put 150 men and 10 women in a very, very confined space for the better part of half a year that they should not have sex? Just sit around, rubbing one out?

 

What I am saying is that if two soldiers can't perform as such and one soldier hinders the mission and has to be removed from her position, then that is unprofessional. I am not naive, nor going to sit here and deny that such things happen. But it is unprofessional if the branch you serve trains you and puts you down in a sub to do a particular job and then you throw it out the window for a lil fun.

[XWING5]

If you are drafted, you are sent to whatever branch needs you. Now, I don't know about the Army, but I know that in the Marine Corps, every Marine is a Rifleman, first and foremost. Your occupation is secondary. You may have been able to carry your weight, but that does not hold true across the board. Every run we did, every hump, every physically demanding excercise, our women always were in the back with the dropouts. Everytime. Now, I'm not saying women cannot serve. I'm saying that they cannot serve in a combat role, support or otherwise. Draft women if you want, but stick them in the airforce or something. They would still be in an unequal position.

 

Actually, that isn't always true. In WWII, guys were not blindly sent out to the front lines. There outside job/qualifications were taken into consideration. If a doctor was drafted, that was recognized and he often became a medic. And I can't speak for the females in your unit, but there are several women in my unit that stay with the front of the pack during ruck marches. However, as I said earlier, it doesn't mean I favor women on the front lines. But the reasons against them not doing so are sometimes weak.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I reckon you are of a decent age. Are you suggesting that it's unprofessional to have sex? Everyone has sex, to deny that and call it unprofessional is like calling it a sin. Do you think that if you put 150 men and 10 women in a very, very confined space for the better part of half a year that they should not have sex? Just sit around, rubbing one out?

CO: So we're in the middle of the Pacific, at a 500 ft., at war with China, who has just launched 2 megatons of missils at the States and wiped out five cities. Now, one of their subs could potentially spot our submarine and blast it to pieces unless we evaded or our countermeasures worked. Also, there's the threat of mutiny, a traitor aboard our sub, and sabotage such as the secret poisoning of our food prior to the sub's launch. I remind you, we're in extreme danger. What is your primary suggestion of action?

Everyone: Let's f***!!!!

Er.. yeah:p

 

Look, if something's banned, something's banned. In a situation like the one above, people wouldn't worry about having sex. They'd worry that they might get killed. It's not like "see, Mr. President, we would have stopped those troop ships, but we were having sex..."

 

Also, about every navy/air force/army regulation has at some point been broken. What about the soldier in Iraq who threw a grenade at his officers' tent. Did they follow that up with a ban of soldiers on guard, not in actual combat, carrying grenades? Or of soldiers being on guard alone, not in pairs? No. But I guess if it had resulted in a pregnancy, it'd have been different?

 

You're right in a way, you can't stop adults from having sex more than you can keep high school students from kissing, and in many cases, having sex. However, you can keep high school students from kissing in class, and let them have to go outside of school to do it. Likewise, you should be able to keep adults from having sex on a sub. Otherwise, our beloved Iraqi Misinformation Minister might come up with something like:

"The American navy has retreated due to pregnancy! Victory is ours! Praise Saddam!":D

 

Okay, anyway, regardless of your position in the military, how many people agree that women should be drafted? At least to positions where they "won't get in the way"?

[XWING5]

I am so undecided. I go back and forth. I think they should, yet I foresee so many problems. So many people would get out of ther draft because one parent would have to stay home or something like that. But yeah, if the draft were to come up again, I think it would only be fair for everyone if the draft was completely non-discriminating. Of course a lot of females would be like "Noooooo!", but a lot of guys are like that too. I just hate to hear females argue about equality when it suits them. Gives us a bad name I think.

[munik]

Well, if you can perform your duties, then I'd be cool with it. After thinking about it for awhile, this whole women in the draft discussion is something like 40 years irrelevant. There is never going to be another draft, not in the foreseable future. But yeah, if there ever is another one, draft women too. They can catch bullets just as well as men.

[XWING5]

Originally posted by munik

But yeah, if there ever is another one, draft women too. They can catch bullets just as well as men.

 

That's right. With our teeth.....