Originally Posted by NateR
1) I'm about 150% positive that this would be a problem in any military that allowed women to fight side by side with men. However, I'm not using that as a reason that women shouldn't be allowed into combat. I think they shouldn't be allowed into combat because they physically aren't able to do the job. Which will require the military to lower their standards and result in a less effective military.
2) I fully believe that a male soldier should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if he rapes a woman. However, the Pentagon is clearly hesitant to do that, so it's not right that they would force women into that scenario if they are not serious about solving the problem.
3) Also, for the record, I do believe that years of sexual repression are a contributing factor behind Catholic priests molesting young boys. I don't think many of them started out as sick perverts, but the legalistic and un-Biblical standards of the Catholic Church gradually turned them into that.
1) See I think thats just sexist, the reason why I think its just sexist is because I dont really see how a combat role would be more physically demanding for a woman then a man. If you had to lift big weights I would understand...but surely smaller equates to higher speed.
It really is exactly the same as the attitude the UFC take with their fighters, insisting really, that what people want to see, what makes the best fight, is two heavyweight strikers...because presumably the smaller, potentially weaker men cant pull it off.
I bet there are probably women who are fitter then some of the men. I also think that your military might be getting to the stage where it potentially has to lower standards, or not be able to keep its full quota. That happens when men get killed at war and someone needs to replace them.
But its not a matter I feel strongly about, coz obviously, for my own reasons, I believe they are out of place on the front line also...I challenged you because you saw fit to bring up the rape issue in the armed forces.
2) In your eyes, can I ask you a fundementally important question. What makes a culture Civilized? Is it about standard of living and modern utilities? You could say an african state is uncivilized if they have to walk ten miles to get water, and babies die of easily vaccinated against disease. But could you not also say that our cultures are uncivilized because there utilities are extravagent beyond the point of need, and their standard of living is high enough to make people live for years but in a sheltered environment where some would say they never truely live at all?
In the same vein You could say that those countries rulled by a dictatorship are uncivilized because they do not take into consideration the views of their subjects, but can it not also be put that those countries whose deomcratic vote systems are a sham, are almost worse for the pretense of an ellection? After all, its strictly speaking a lie, that any American can run for president, when the largest factor against any citizen is the amount of money they would need for a campaign. In England, its nothing more then an ellected dictatorship, all the politicians make promises to be ellected, but once ellected, they dont have to keep with those promises.
Perhaps you might say its the Countries attitudes to development and the freedoms granted to their citizens that mark them as civilized. Yet all you Americans argue over consitutional rights which are already ammendments to the original document. Any ammendment indicates the possibilitiy of addition and subtraction by the relevent body, which indicates that a consitution isnt permanent and unchanging, that your rights might only be rights until the next ammendment. In a similar way, the British Government has no quarms in letting protestors take to the streets, and march. But that is no indication that the Government listens to them. What point is being permitted to show your dissaproval if all they do is ignore you?
Above all you could say its access to Justice that makes a country civilized. If like you have argued (and in different, but no less injust ways our Government also) your pentagon, stands AGAINST Justice in order not to create a scene, or embarissment, or to save its own reputation (no doubt those that protect its reputation think thats far more important then the voice of a few individuals
) Is it civilized at all?
3) Do you think its the legalism that does it
I mean...thats a link between the Military and the Church if ever there was one. The legalistic framework which stands apart from the law of the land as an alternative strand. Whether it be Cannon Law from The Roman Curia....or Military Law under a Court Marshal....or Even Civil Law under a Capitalistic Institution....as opposed to the Criminal Law of The Land.