Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    I think somone with your intelligence should be able to see why it is so outrageous.. you could probably put it on bored.com and people would think it was a joke
    someone with my intelligence can see it has been an issue for more than a decade and a number of leading politicians, ex-politicians and statesmen, particuarly of the right wing, take this line.one of the most high profile of which is Margaret Thatcher.

    if your interested in more, http://www.cmrlink.org
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    someone with my intelligence can see it has been an issue for more than a decade and a number of leading politicians, ex-politicians and statesmen, particuarly of the right wing, take this line.one of the most high profile of which is Margaret Thatcher.
    Lol!!! Good old Maggie.. she was crazy. Can't even be counted as female.. she had no vision of equality
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Lol!!! Good old Maggie.. she was crazy. Can't even be counted as female.. she had no vision of equality
    so you dont agree with it. or you still believe its a joke?
    sometimes hard to pin down with all the changes in context.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weasel)
    It isn't racism. Just fact. We (coalition) wouldn't treat Iraqi P.O.W's in that way, so why do the Iraqis beat and rape our P.O.W's? No they are barbaric animals. Nothing to do with racism. You are a brain-washed idiot living in a fantasy world of political correctness.
    how do you know what iraqis really do? all you hear is teh media version
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tina)
    how do you know what iraqis really do? all you hear is teh media version
    which is precisely why we are in this mess over Jessica Lynch.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    which is precisely why we are in this mess over Jessica Lynch.
    wel we cant know what is the truth........it has to be admitted nearly all media contains bias.....apart from the independent of course
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    so you dont agree with it. or you still believe its a joke?
    sometimes hard to pin down with all the changes in context.
    No I absolutley do not agree with it!

    How can the capture of females during war be used to promote radical feminist objectives?? That just makes no sense for a start as that is not what feminism, or even radical feminism is about. They put it as if women are the victim and they are forced into combat.. well if they didn't want to fight then they shouldn't have joined the army. They were not forced into anything. Not all women are "young mother".. they are cornerning females into a specific stereotype which just doesn't fit in this day and age.

    Its clear a man wrote this- I'm suprised you posted it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    No I absolutley do not agree with it!

    How can the capture of females during war be used to promote radical feminist objectives?? That just makes no sense for a start as that is not what feminism, or even radical feminism is about. They put it as if women are the victim and they are forced into combat.. well if they didn't want to fight then they shouldn't have joined the army. They were not forced into anything. Not all women are "young mother".. they are cornerning females into a specific stereotype which just doesn't fit in this day and age.

    Its clear a man wrote this- I'm suprised you posted it
    pro-feminist groups have used this and previous stories to distort accidents involving women in combat to show that they are as capable of dealing with and as susceptible as male colleagues. in this case and others, it is unfortunately the very fact that they are women that had increased the likelihood of the accident. that is the point they are making.

    women have a right to serve in the military and i would imagine are better in very many roles than men. serving in cases of maximum risk, requiring extensive physical resource, a la the front line, is not such a place(http://www.cmrlink.org/international.asp?docID=113). the petition talks specifically on a subject that a substantial portion of statesmen believe, both male and female, that being that having mixed sex combat troops can degrade the overall quality of the armed forces. to take two examples. training is taken to fit male ability. many females cannot throw a grenade the same distance as a male, so instead of dropping out of the army, the army is forced to reduce the required level to make sure enough women are seen to be making the grade. in combat, you need to have trust in your fellows. the introduction of females into the army would severly disrupt the concentration, judgement and reliablity of male soldiers. these are the points that are being raised.

    it is not a case of being a man or a woman. i dont see this as sexist, i see this as common sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    which is precisely why we are in this mess over Jessica Lynch.
    which i hope of course noone is going to pin on the pentagon???
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Damn.. I thought I could have the last word and that would be that. But I guess I can still tear holes in your weak argument..

    (Original post by vienna95)
    pro-feminist groups have used this and previous stories to distort accidents involving women in combat to show that they are as capable of dealing with and as susceptible as male colleagues. in this case and others, it is unfortunately the very fact that they are women that had increased the likelihood of the accident. that is the point they are making.
    I like how they mention feminists to immediatley put a bad slant on women who disagree with the petition. That just doesn't hold up- if a women gets captured its becuase she is a women but if a man gets captured then its just bad luck.


    (Original post by vienna95)
    training is taken to fit male ability. many females cannot throw a grenade the same distance as a male, so instead of dropping out of the army, the army is forced to reduce the required level to make sure enough women are seen to be making the grade. in combat, you need to have trust in your fellows. the introduction of females into the army would severly disrupt the concentration, judgement and reliablity of male soldiers. these are the points that are being raised..
    As far as I can see it is a MALE problem that their concentration is broken if women are there and its the army's fault that they lower the required level. Surely it would be better if the army allowed women to fight but left the fitness level as high as needed. I can't see were females are to blame in this..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Damn.. I thought I could have the last word and that would be that. But I guess I can still tear holes in your weak argument..
    how mature...

    I like how they mention feminists to immediatley put a bad slant on women who disagree with the petition. That just doesn't hold up- if a women gets captured its becuase she is a women but if a man gets captured then its just bad luck.
    they mention feminists because its feminists who have challenged them through the media with specific pieces of reporting. they are saying that this is distorting the reality. it has nothing to do with being a man or a woman.

    As far as I can see it is a MALE problem that their concentration is broken if women are there and its the army's fault that they lower the required level. Surely it would be better if the army allowed women to fight but left the fitness level as high as needed. I can't see were females are to blame in this..
    but no women would ever enter, and then youve got the liberal groups on your back because theres not adequate representation. you are seeing this as a womens rights issue and blame aimed at women(how i have no idea), when clearly the point is made towards the army and those who control it. i edited this in, http://www.cmrlink.org/international.asp?docID=113

    and i would also add that..The President of CMR, Elaine Donnelly , is a former member (1984-86) of the Pentagon’s Defense advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DaCOWITS), and the 1992 Presidential Commission on the assignment of Women in the armed Services. i would suggest she may have a point to bring.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    how mature...
    but no women would ever enter, and then youve got the liberal groups on your back because theres not adequate representation. you are seeing this as a womens rights issue and blame aimed at women(how i have no idea), when clearly the point is made towards the army and those who control it. i edited this in, http://www.cmrlink.org/international.asp?docID=113
    Even with the amount of women there now is there an adequete representation? i think not.. and you don't think liberals will be on your back anyway if you ban women from the army? I thought you were all about being realistic.. but this clearly isn't
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Even with the amount of women there now is there an adequete representation? i think not.. and you don't think liberals will be on your back anyway if you ban women from the army? I thought you were all about being realistic.. but this clearly isn't
    having written many an essay on contemporary feminism(i think ive mentioned this before?) i can assure you that it is realistic for feminist groups to want to improve on current inadequate representation, as you point out. it clearly is a realistic issue bearing in mind there is an insititution designed purely to combat this and similar issues.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    having written many an essay on contemporary feminism(i think ive mentioned this before?) i can assure you that it is realistic for feminist groups to want to improve on current inadequate representation, as you point out. it clearly is a realistic issue bearing in mind there is an insititution designed purely to combat this and similar issues.
    I haven't read every single one of your posts so I'm not familiar with your knowledge of feminism but when I stated that you weren't being realistic I was actually referring to the fact that you think banning women would stop liberal protest against the army.. as you used it as an excuse for the army not keeping its levels of achievement high.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    I haven't read every single one of your posts so I'm not familiar with your knowledge of feminism but when I stated that you weren't being realistic I was actually referring to the fact that you think banning women would stop liberal protest against the army.. as you used it as an excuse for the army not keeping its levels of achievement high.
    the point is the army should be the main consideration. at the moment, liberals are forcing standards down to keep womens numbers up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the point is the army should be the main consideration. at the moment, liberals are forcing standards down to keep womens numbers up.
    I think you mean the army is forcing standards down.. don't blame it on liberal pressure groups.

    If it were up to me we'd have no armys.. which were incidently created by men.. what a bright idea that was..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    If it were up to me we'd have no armys.. which were incidently created by men.. what a bright idea that was..
    i give up..pointless.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weasel)
    It isn't racism. Just fact. We (coalition) wouldn't treat Iraqi P.O.W's in that way, so why do the Iraqis beat and rape our P.O.W's? No they are barbaric animals. Nothing to do with racism. You are a brain-washed idiot living in a fantasy world of political correctness.
    Yes i'm sure the prisons in Camp X-ray aren't treated bad ow wait they are weeled about, have no right to lawyers. no to mention perading dead people on tv, hypocrites
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hotnanoo)
    Yes i'm sure the prisons in Camp X-ray aren't treated bad ow wait they are weeled about, have no right to lawyers. no to mention perading dead people on tv, hypocrites
    you are both dealing in points of complete and utter fallacy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hotnanoo)
    Yes i'm sure the prisons in Camp X-ray aren't treated bad ow wait they are weeled about, have no right to lawyers. no to mention perading dead people on tv, hypocrites
    Camp X-Ray holds terrorists. Not P.O.W soldiers.

    Besides, I very much doubt these prisoners have been treated in the same way as our P.O.W's were treated by the Iraqi's. Namely, beaten, tortured, starved, raped and/or executed on the spot with a bullet to the head. You talk utter rubbish.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.