The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

If World War 3 kicks off! We need an equal number of women on the front line.......

Scroll to see replies

As Plato said, women should be given equal opportunity to men, but the selection process depends on merit and merit alone and thus on average there will be more men than women due to the natures of each and the nature of war.
1479938289977.jpg

We're pigs? Okay,but we need you females. Your boobs and vaginas are basic necessities of life(especially during wars). Without them,human beings can't survive!

Don't let us feel lonely in the battlefields...

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 62
Avatar for 3121
3121
21
Not sure, women played a crucial part in WW2 & 1 and need to fulfill those roles again if WW3 were to happen. Sure it's a stereo type but someone does need to stay home with the kids and someone needs to go out and fight. Not saying women should be discrimated against just saying the priorities for them shouldn't be to be on the front line
Original post by NI30241834
Absolutly not! i say this as an infantry soldier myself. there are so many reasons not to allow women onto the frontline to do so for equalitly is a stupid decision that will ultimately cost soldiers lives.


yeah, because women are **** at combat, and men are pussy white knights when women get hurt that they act irrationally and die for clunge
there's a difference between equal opportunity and protecting the country effectively, right?
(edited 7 years ago)
good lads lets get them on the front line!!!!!!!!
Reply 65
Avatar for S2M
S2M
22
Original post by Bill_Gates
good lads lets get them on the front line!!!!!!!!


Lol. :smile:
Original post by the bear
yep those IDF chicks kick ass big time :jive:








If I was at war and my enemies were these women, I'd be licking my lips at the prospect of facing them. Not because of their beauty (or rather lack of) but because it'd be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Reply 67
Avatar for RobML
RobML
6
Not really, the same standards should apply to both genders.
Reply 68
Avatar for RobML
RobML
6
Original post by sleepysnooze
yeah, because women are **** at combat, and men are pussy white knights when women get hurt that they act irrationally and die for clunge
there's a difference between equal opportunity and protecting the country effectively, right?


So all women are less competant than all men, and all men are straight? Please think before posting.
Original post by RobML
So all women are less competant than all men, and all men are straight? Please think before posting.


:lol: wow.
that argument was so **** you might as well have been correcting my grammar as an argument instead. all you said was "you failed to say 'straight* male soldiers' therefore your point fails AHAHAHAH" seriously? that's the only way you could think of reputing my argument? you couldn't have attempted to assume that I already agree with the fact that not all soldiers are straight? you couldn't even have understood that I'm generalising soldiers? jesus - so if I said "women have vaginas" your argument would be "not all women have vaginas! some of them are trans!!! you idiot!!!!1!" -_- so your point of "not all soldiers are straight" is to assume that this somehow changes anything rgarding male soldiers - how many soldiers do you think are gay in the military? a significant amount? or a minute amount? if it's the latter, then why even bother correcting me when it doesn't even matter? oh my god.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 70
Avatar for RobML
RobML
6
Original post by sleepysnooze
:lol: wow.
that argument was so **** you might as well have been correcting my grammar as an argument instead. all you said was "you failed to say 'straight* male soldiers' therefore your point fails AHAHAHAH" seriously? that's the only way you could think of reputing my argument? you couldn't have attempted to assume that I already agree with the fact that not all soldiers are straight? you couldn't even have understood that I'm generalising soldiers? jesus - so if I said "women have vaginas" your argument would be "not all women have vaginas! some of them are trans!!! you idiot!!!!1!" -_- so your point of "not all soldiers are straight" is to assume that this somehow changes anything rgarding male soldiers - how many soldiers do you think are gay in the military? a significant amount? or a minute amount? if it's the latter, then why even bother correcting me when it doesn't even matter? oh my god.


Are you okay? "because women are **** at combat, and men are pussy white knights when women get hurt that they act irrationally and die for clunge" insinuates exactly what I said.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by RobML
Are you okay? "because women are **** at combat, and men are pussy white knights when women get hurt that they act irrationally and die for clunge" insinuates exactly what I said.


do you understand that gay men represent a very insignificant percentage of the male combatant population? so how is this a powerful argument? does it do much to tackle what I said when straight men are the vast majority of soldiers?
Reply 72
Avatar for RobML
RobML
6
Original post by sleepysnooze
do you understand that gay men represent a very insignificant percentage of the male combatant population? so how is this a powerful argument? does it do much to tackle what I said when straight men are the vast majority of soldiers?


Maybe that's a weak point and I shouldn't have mentioned that, but regardless, you agreed with the notion no women should be allowed on the frontline and mentioned they are **** at combat, which can only be explained by a belief that all women are less suited to combat than all men. Understand?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Bill_Gates
If World War 3 kicks off! We need an equal number of women on the front line.......

Do you guys agree?


No.

Members of both biological sexes should be free to participate if they want to, but that does not necessarily entail equal numbers. Just allow members of both biological sexes to participate, and then go with the flow. Forced diversity, as I liked to call it, is a disgusting move away from equality, if you were to propose that.
(edited 7 years ago)
Why is everyone here yapping on about 'equality' and 'physical ability' and 'emotions'?
Surely the reason for women not being on the front line is for species preservation purposes. At the end of day no matter what humans say or achieve we are still at heart all animals and have animal instincts. And in war many people die so in order to reproduce, the number of men is not much of an issue as 1 man is capable of impregnating many women but 1 woman is only capable of being impregnated by one man. So the reason women should never go to war is because we need to produce offspring to replace those killed off. Hence why even though a 1:1 male/female ration is ideal humanity can still go on with a 1:5 male/female ratio but a 3:1 male/female ratio would be catastrophic.
Original post by NI30241834
Absolutly not! i say this as an infantry soldier myself. there are so many reasons not to allow women onto the frontline to do so for equalitly is a stupid decision that will ultimately cost soldiers lives.


what he said!
its also a known fact that carrying the same amount of weight has the ability and has previously broke womens hips
Original post by RobML
Maybe that's a weak point and I shouldn't have mentioned that, but regardless, you agreed with the notion no women should be allowed on the frontline and mentioned they are **** at combat, which can only be explained by a belief that all women are less suited to combat than all men. Understand?


women should have the opportunity to join the military, even for front line roles. but they shouldn't fight alongside men, because heterosexual* men will do stupid things if they think they'll be rewarded by pussy. and even if they were in a gendered regiment, they'd get their asses handed to them. because they're physically weaker than male soldiers, assuming that the standards for entering the military (regarding combat roles) would decrease for them. it would be like sending children to war - would we really expect many of them to come back alive? I wouldn't
Reply 77
Avatar for RobML
RobML
6
Original post by sleepysnooze
women should have the opportunity to join the military, even for front line roles. but they shouldn't fight alongside men, because heterosexual* men will do stupid things if they think they'll be rewarded by pussy. and even if they were in a gendered regiment, they'd get their asses handed to them. because they're physically weaker than male soldiers, assuming that the standards for entering the military (regarding combat roles) would decrease for them. it would be like sending children to war - would we really expect many of them to come back alive? I wouldn't


My first post here was that standards should be the same the both genders, so that wouldn't be an issue. Have you any proof of women fighting alongside men decreasing effectiveness, though?
Original post by the bear
yep those IDF chicks kick ass big time :jive:










I prefer socialist soldiers.

Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I prefer socialist soldiers.





Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you