War and disposable men?

Question

The main impression that I get here is that there are quite a few men who wish to be in charge and want women to go back to how they used to be, ie-obedient, feminine women who stay at home looking after her husband,children and taking care of the household. Also many men have mentioned that women are too physically weak to fight.

But then I hear a fair amount of grumbling about how men don't like to be seen as disposable when it comes to going off to fight in wars.
So my question is, if men wish not to be disposable then why are they so against women fighting along side of them?
Wars happen, that can't be changed, so why do men place themselves in this position and don't want women fighting alongside and then grumble?
It's appears to be contradictory, so what do men really want?

please excuse the bad grammar, am a bit distracted.

That is a reasonable answer Guns. There shouldn't be any easy pass for women, after all lives depend on the people with who a person is fighting alongside.

Yes Portwine, I guess we're all guilty at times. Sometimes I have the thoughts there but have trouble organising the words to get my point across.

Men complain about being seen as disposable in war and it is blamed on women not giving men enough consideration as human beings, yet those men don't want women to fight too. In war, people are disposible, whether men or women, so what right do men have to complain if they don't want women fighting alongside of them and why are women to blame for this? Women don't send men to war. The blame is misdirected IMO.
If this cannot be understood, then I give up.

Answer 1

As so much in war situations is not about being on the frontline women are perfectly suited to many jobs in the military if they are prepared to put up with the crap.

And disposable by whom? Other men send men to war - many peace protestors are women. As far as I can see women value soldiers lives more.

Answer 2

Noam Chomsky wrote a very interesting chapter on this in his book " Manufacturing Consent"
He called it the concept of worthy and unworthy victims.
Worthy victims (women) are featured prominently and dramatically. They will be humanized.
Unworthy victims (men) will merit only slight descriptive detail, minimal humanization and little context to excite or enrage.
You see this all the time in the way the media reports deaths of men and women differently. Just recently a power station collapsed here in the uk while being demolished It killed 5 men and injured 50. The media avoided using the word men like the plague. They used workers, they used staff, they used injured people but never once acknowledged that they were all men.
If an office block had collapsed killing 5 women and injuring 50 more do you think for one minute that they wouldn't be pointing out that it was women that had been killed and injured?
It happens all the time. Next time you here of workers being injured and it is men see for yourself.

Answer 3

It's simple really.

Men are on average bigger and stronger than women. This is a biological fact.

Politically correct policies cast this fact aside to replace it with feelgood false empowerment for women.

When physical tests have to be altered and watered down to let women in, there is a problem.

Firefighters need to be able to lift heavy people out of burning houses and heavy equipment to fight the fire. PC politics have no place here. Lives are at stake.

Men don't like the ridiculous PC intervention.

In the military, the tests are also watered down to let women in. Whether it's urban "kick down the door & flush out insurgent" warfare, carrying equipment to a camp, or carrying a wounded soldier off the battlefield, strength is key. PC politics have no place here. Lives are at stake.

Men don't like the ridiculous PC intervention.

So because we don't like PC intervention, we can still object to the history of the military draft where men were FORCED to join the military & sent to some foreign country to be shot in half by machine gun fire while their wives were sleeping safely in their warm beds & yet somehow it was their wives that were "oppressed."

Men were completely disposable & sent to their deaths by the thousands... some against their will.

Nowadays, if military tests were the SAME for men & women & women passed the standard male physical requirements then they have every right to be there.

If not, they are more harm than good & just like the weaker men that were sent packing during the PT tests ...need to go away.

Answer 4

Its rather easy. Raise the standards for women to be as high as men's. Both men and women should be able to fight in the armed forces, but only if both can lift 280 pounds in dead-lift, so they can carry an injured soldier away from danger.

Answer 5

Women should not go into combat situations because they cannot take being told what to do without question and would argue the rights and wrongs of a situation...Men are bred by their mothers to do as they are told because women like to dominate in a family environment...Therefore men can take the orders ,without question, and get on with the job in hand because they are used to being dominated which is an essential part of the Military ..We had a saying in the army "Never disobey an order whether it be right or wrong , just Do it and question it after" .Can you imagine any female being able to do that ..
John

Answer 6

I can't answer for other men but myself I don't think it's appropriate to have women go to war
I prefer women to be compassionate,nurturing,
understanding caring and sensitive, taking care of the family I don't think of myself as disposable I wish there were no wars no fighting but I won't back away from it either if it happens to come my way.Why do women always have to feel like they have to be better or equal to a man? In alot of ways women are, just not physically! To answer question of not being alongside, because me have a tendency to protect women and in so doing are not concentrating on the task at hand which is killing period but rather concentrating on the women so they don't get hurt and in so doing end up getting hurt or killed themselves now one could argue that I (women)never asked you(male) to protect me but i think that's an inherrent value built into men through the millenium that really can't be broken or trained away as some think just my opinion. btw have a happy new year!!

Answer 7

Personally I am for peace. The problem we keep having is that, in all our arguments men against women and others, we always have to put war first. What would happen if we put peace first?

I completely disagree with military being compulsary. I've lived in a country where it was, and it does not do anybody any good if you have a corrupt govt, and besides a few countries in the entire world, who doesn't?

I also had a question for Marguerite... if the military is that good in Israel, why can't they achieve peace in what's left of that country?

Answer 8

Hypocrite. Most or at least half of the men, are not the stupid kind of men that you are talking about. But virtually EVERY woman want that men fight for them. This is the true reason.
I bet that if a dangerous situation eventually arised you would scream like a little damsel and demand that some man protect you.

Answer 9

We all are disposable. Unless you're rich and important, your life isn't really worth that much. That's the way our society is and unfortunately, always has been. The lives of rich people always have more value than those of poor people. That's why they can get better justice, education, jobs, medical care, and are able to take advantage of loopholes that can keep them out of combat in wartime situations.

Answer 10

I am against militarism in all its forms. Yes, to the politico-military establishment soldiers are just disposable pawns, they send men to war without qualm. If soldiers of all nations ceased to behave like 'I obey' robots and simply refused to take orders that would be an end to war.