Women in direct combat

[invisible]

Rogue, i disagree strongly with you. all this is pure nonsense about men having little compartments in their brains, and if it is true, how could compartmentalising these issues, and failing to properly integrate and process these experiences, possibly lead to their healthy resolution? and these studies say nothing about how capable men are of gender-appropriately concealing traumatic effects or how capable women are of gender-appropriately displaying such effects. the idea that men should feel a compulsion to protect women is itself perpetuated by this idea that women need to be protected from armed combat. and if soldiers feel a twinge of horror when they see someone slain, whether a woman or a man, and their morale is reduced as a consequence, well why on earth shouldn't it be - if they can't handle seeing someone killed, should they really be at war? there is also a strange assumption that any military intervention can ever be "successful". there is another assumption that civilian woman are not slain or raped in war; and if she realises that she may be raped, but still wants to go to war, why shouldn't she make her own decision, who are you to decide for her? and what exactly is with your sexist assumption that women who want to join the military feel this way due to a desire to "play badass" - does that mean that men who join the military do so in order to "play badass", or does this mean that a woman is incapable of feeling genuinely the same "noble" expressions of violence for which military men are upheld as heroes? women are as fully capable of acting out extreme violence as men, and in war too - have we all forgotten the pictures of abu ghraib - featuring women soldiers torturing prisoners? or maybe we never saw those little pictures! of course war is horrifying, but how is that an argument that women are not capable of taking it? as if women aren't already raped and bashed and subjected to endless physical and psychological tortures in their everyday civilian lives! the idea that they can be or should be protected from horror through exclusion from war is total illusion.

"idiots... idiots... idiots..." fabulously imaginative polemic, or childish ad hominem namecalling? you decide.

 

[88chaz88]

Everything should be allowed as long as it doesn't directly harm others.

PTSD could be 100% for ex-servicewomen and I still say they should be allowed.

 

[This]

I tend to disagree with the prospect of most war but as long as we're going to have them gender should play no role in decision making aside from maybe certain physical incapability's.

 

[Rogue]

Do you believe women should be granted the right to served in direct combat if they were willing to make the choice? what possible effects would this have?

this

 

[Rogue]

Rogue, i disagree strongly with you. all this is pure nonsense about men having little compartments in their brains, and if it is true, how could compartmentalising these issues, and failing to properly integrate and process these experiences, possibly lead to their healthy resolution? and these studies say nothing about how capable men are of gender-appropriately concealing traumatic effects or how capable women are of gender-appropriately displaying such effects. the idea that men should feel a compulsion to protect women is itself perpetuated by this idea that women need to be protected from armed combat. and if soldiers feel a twinge of horror when they see someone slain, whether a woman or a man, and their morale is reduced as a consequence, well why on earth shouldn't it be - if they can't handle seeing someone killed, should they really be at war? there is also a strange assumption that any military intervention can ever be "successful". there is another assumption that civilian woman are not slain or raped in war; and if she realises that she may be raped, but still wants to go to war, why shouldn't she make her own decision, who are you to decide for her? and what exactly is with your sexist assumption that women who want to join the military feel this way due to a desire to "play badass" - does that mean that men who join the military do so in order to "play badass", or does this mean that a woman is incapable of feeling genuinely the same "noble" expressions of violence for which military men are upheld as heroes? women are as fully capable of acting out extreme violence as men, and in war too - have we all forgotten the pictures of abu ghraib - featuring women soldiers torturing prisoners? or maybe we never saw those little pictures! of course war is horrifying, but how is that an argument that women are not capable of taking it? as if women aren't already raped and bashed and subjected to endless physical and psychological tortures in their everyday civilian lives! the idea that they can be or should be protected from horror through exclusion from war is total illusion.

"idiots... idiots... idiots..." fabulously imaginative polemic, or childish ad hominem namecalling? you decide.

Well, actually it is not nonsense

 

[detectivepope]

Not been funny but these compartments that men have are also interconnected, where have you got your source the forties? The differences in the human brain (as far as sex is concerned) are minimal at birth (the fact that we are sexless until after initial brain development in the womb) and have no greater difference until full development, by which point its down to social/environmental influence. Everyone's brain is interconnected differently so to generalise such a thing is poor science.

 

[Nighthawk]

A lot of people go to war unaware of what they will really be faced with so they wouldn