i not meant that women should just work in kitchen , of course i am against it. but why when there are lots of man in country they should use women for war.
of course it is very necessary to every woman to learn how should protect herself when some one attack her. but a smart woman should know that , god dont create her for fight.
if they send women by name of freedom to war, i prefer to not be free.
2007-01-15 20:05:59 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Use women for war? Did you not know that they sign themselves up?
2007-01-15 20:09:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who looks at men and women objectively can plainly see they are suited to fill two important but very different roles in perpetuating the race. Women are suited to birth, nurture and raise the next generation. While men are suited to provide and protect the women and children. If there is a need to fight a war, the men of the society are the logical choice to sent to fight it.
Here in America, we have experienced peace on our home soil for so long that we thought we could afford the politically correct notion that men should not have any special role different from women. Some women have pointed out that the men that survive military combat often have an advantage in gaining political power in peace time. For this reason they have pushed to be included in the military.
If women were forced into a combat role then I think certainly what would be abuse. In the case of the United States military to the extent women are encouraged to volunteer for combat duty I think it is just plane folly. when men fall in battle it is a sad but necessary sacrifice. If women were to fall in battle it would be a foolish shameful waste.
.
2007-01-17 16:10:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not ALL of the army fights. That was the major flaw of Hitlers Wehrmacht, a lot of effort was put in the fighting front, while supply was marginally leading to catastrophy after catastrophy as soon as it got dents. Women in the American military are still not allowed to do tasks that involve actively seeking confrontation with the enemy. Iam not even sure if they are allowed to stand guard. However war changed since no army opposes an technically advanced army like the US in a frontline battle and any part of us personell can become a victim of ambushes. Maybe because of it women will be banned from serving outside the country in the long run.
2007-01-16 04:04:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd rethink your last statement "If they send women by name of freedom to war, i prefer to not be free". There have been women in the thick of things fighting for our freedom for a very, very long time. We, as women, should be just as prepared to make the sacrifice of fighting for freedom as men are-its our freedom too.
Fighting for our freedom is an equal opportunity event. Are you saying women feel less strongly about our freedom than men do? That's not true.
2007-01-17 09:26:01 · answer #4 · answered by Terry Z 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you mean in the US, anyone in the military has joined voluntarily. They have to pass tests to be able to join. I am not sure that women and men should fight alongside each other. I think that men may think of protecting the women more than they should. If a woman has joined, she knows the danger.
Some women I know who aren't in the military seem to want to fight all the time. God did make some women to fight and they do!
2007-01-15 20:17:24 · answer #5 · answered by Susan M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Women are sent to war zones because they worked hard to assure that they would be. It's not like the military wanted to send women to war. Women lobbied and fought for the right to go because they felt that not being able to go held them back in their military careers. So, if women don't want to go to war then I recommend not joining the military and/or thank feminists for the fact that they have to put their life on the line now too.
2007-01-15 20:21:24 · answer #6 · answered by Ellen J 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Is it not abuse to send men to war? There is no difference between sending a qualified man and sending a qualified woman. You are a total moron! If you'd rather be in bondage than accept social responsibility, you have no right to voice your opinion amongst women and men willing to support their freedom.
2007-01-16 03:29:03 · answer #7 · answered by Cristy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the world was governed by women there would be no war. I would not want to invade someone else's land just for the heck of it. What's the point? Men have proven they can't govern countries. They are always into some scrape with their neighbors like children. I would bet my life that if women took over there would be instant peace in the world. No woman wants to fight a war where children die. I would think more on the lines of using our powers to stop famine and enlist people to study and control diseases. War is stupid. And that goes for all male governed countries.
2007-01-15 20:21:24 · answer #8 · answered by greylady 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No one forced these women to enlist. It was a decision they came to on their own. If they're physically and mentally capable of fighting a war, they should have the right to do so.
2007-01-16 10:56:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey man, we don't "send women off to war"
Women in our country are FREE.
(I know that's a foreign concept to you.)
Some of them choose,
on their own,
without anyone telling them what to do,
to join the armed forces.
That is their RIGHT as FREE CITIZENS.
In our country women own themselves.
They are not PROPERTY,
They are not KITCHEN SLAVES.
We believe god created men and women with FREE WILL,
Can you not understand that simple concept?
2007-01-15 20:20:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋