2006-08-09 23:33:39 · 17 answers · asked by reachingstarz 1 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
why shouldn't they be? are you from the Indian sub-continent?
2006-08-09 23:37:29 · answer #1 · answered by Punya T 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The reality is that they already are, despite the prohibition on women in "combat positions." These days, even support positions suffer heavy casualties due to IEDs and mortar attacks.
Anybody who can do the job should be allowed to. Women shouldn't be given a separate set of physical standards for combat, but women who can meet the existing standards should not be excluded. It's unjustifiable.
By the way, there are already plenty of families where both parents are enlisted in the military, and both are often deployed at the same time, sometimes in the same unit. The military makes very little consideration of this fact, and requires all parents to have a "family care plan" detailing who will take care of the children while both parents (or the single parent) are called away.
The only break given to parents is that new mothers are non deployable for six months so that they can breast feed. They still have to go to work, but they can't be sent away from their baby for six months.
2006-08-11 03:18:19 · answer #2 · answered by smurfette 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe women should be allowed to do any job a man can do...however....many women do not want to admit that men are inherantly physically stronger. So if the unit's survival depends on every member being able to carry out the physical rigors of a particular function, the deployment of women should be carefully considered.
A couple should not have to serve hazardous duty at the same time. Especially if there are children involved. One of them needs to be the nurturer of their future generation.
Speaking of nurturing, women are the primary nurturers of our species. We need them to be the mothers of our future. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I have a problem asking a mom to shoot some other mother's son and then go home when its all over and nurture her own children.
What I'm getting at is that women should be deployed if they want to but where to deploy should be seriously considered.
2006-08-09 23:53:03 · answer #3 · answered by groomingdiva_pgh 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I believe that if women wish to, then they should be allowed. Only because this is their right. I may be old fashioned, but I will always lead infront of a woman if I sense danger, and therefore, if it were my decision, I would feel more comfortable having the ladies stay at home.
I know this doesn't make sense, logically speaking, but I have always had a problem seeing women getting hurt. There shouldn't be any violence whatsoever, but women of all people should not be hurt. Whether rape, abuse, or combat injuries, I don't believe they should be hurt, rather, respected and protected at all times. But again, I revert to the fact that it is their sole choice to go to combat.
If you are asking if they should be 'drafted', then I say no, because I believe that nobody should be drafted. People should choose to go to combat, not kill against their will, in the name of 'whoever happens to be runing the show at the time it happens'
2006-08-09 23:43:23 · answer #4 · answered by Ludwig Van Herr 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't think anyone (regardless of gender) should be FORCED to join the military, but if that was to be done I don't see why women should be an exception.
2006-08-11 01:22:10 · answer #5 · answered by undir 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, why not? In military service all genders are paid at the same rate for pay grades. If you want equality in the workplace, everybody should be doing their share of the work.
2006-08-09 23:41:41 · answer #6 · answered by Horndog 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If they want the world to see them as equals then they should absolutely be put in to military service just like the men are. You can never be an equal if you do not carry your own weight.
2006-08-09 23:39:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. They shouldn't be in the military , period. Put them in a tank and they get lost. Put them in an aircraft and they get captured. They're always going on about how if they were in charge, the world would be at peace. I wouldn't want someone without the will to destroy the enemy at my back.
2006-08-09 23:48:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Chinese speaking to a Chinese operator?
Caller : Hello, can I speak to Annie Wan ??
Operator : Yes, you can speak to me.
Caller: No, I want to speak to Annie Wan!
Operator: You are talking to someone! Who is this?
Caller: I'm Sum Wan .And I need to talk to Annie Wan! It's urgent.
Operator: I know u are someone and u want to talk to anyone! But? what's this urgent matter about?
Caller: Well just tell my sister Annie Wan that our brother,Noe
Wan was involved in an accident.
Noe Wan got? injured and now Noe Wan is being sent to the hospital. Right now,? Avery Wan is on his way to the hospital.
Operator: Look if no one was injured and no one was sent to the hospital
from the accident that isn't an urgent matter!
You may find this hilarious but I don't have time for this!
?Caller: You are so rude! Who are you?
Operator: I'm Saw Lee.
Caller: Yes! You should be sorry. Now give me your name!!
2006-08-10 03:12:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If they believe in equality, than yes, along with signing up for the Draft. As the birth rate for male children continues to drop, there may be no choice in the matter.
2006-08-09 23:39:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes.
There are medic services, pilots, etc..
How ever you will not see one on the front lines as a ranger, sniper and such.
I think if they sign up for it then yes they have a duty to full fill.
2006-08-09 23:44:51 · answer #11 · answered by Carey 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋