In the midst of a war, are groups of women better equipped than men to lead the way towards peace?

 

 

 

discuss.

Ramp... This is a male dominated site, what do you think your discussion is going to be dominated by...

 

This should not even be an issue. However, many think it is, so I'm going to say what many women think.

 

I wanted to enlist in the marines some years ago. I encountered fearce opposition, mostly among my male friends and family. They argued that the army is not for women, that it is brutal and cruel and that women should not be subject to the horrors of war. Then I thought, what is the difference between a man or a woman being subject to the "horrors of war"? Is it more acceptable that man can fight and die for their country? What are we a retrograde society? :pullhair

 

So, I applied nevertheless. I did not pass, not because I wasn't a woman, but because I was over 26 (the limit age... go figure!). And to tell you honestly, I was more fit to be a soldier than any of the other men applying. They say things happen for a reason. Maybe I wasn't destined to be an American soldier or God didn't want me to die in a senseless and immoral war...

 

Why are men more "fit" to fight in battle? Yeah, I know the typical macho answer would be: Men are stronger! But that doesn't prove anything. A soldier doesn't have to be muscle mass. To be a soldier you need to be able to think on your feet, to react assertively, to take stress and dispair and to know how to outsmart your enemy. A woman can do that and more; just as good or better than a man. Physical combat is not even used much anymore. So muscles are not required as much.

 

I would have made a fine soldier... That's all I can tell you. I can kick ass and know how to use my brains and a gun.

if girls can do everything in boot camp, and if the officers feel that they are physically able to do it, then I say why the hell not.

 

But...I have heard of different emotional and mental aspects between women and men, and I dont have the article in front of me, but it's much tougher for a trained female soldier to kill a man/woman than for a man. I believe the article mentioned how most murders are committed by men.

Generally men are stronger and more aggressive. None of this has any use in a nuclear submarine. Therefore nuclear subs should have all women.

I honestly believe women are just as suited to the battlefield as men. It takes more than just brawn to heft a gun and to shoot someone. Plus, they're better suited at working out compromises. We just need women diplomats and we'd never go to war.

To say something that is inherently wrong and then sexist in one post is jsut bad.

 

Women don't have as much testosterone, are therefore leess agressive, and therefore (generally) not as good killing machines. If women ran the world, don't say there would be no war. look at marget thatcher.

 

Lcyberlina might of made a great soldier, but on the whole men are bilogically more made to be killers than women.

I hope you did not go there... "bilogically more made to be killers"????

 

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

 

I need a Med student here to tell me if there is such a thing as being a "Biologically" viable killer.

 

Please!

well for those of you who think a woman could be better towards peace do you have any examples?

 

and

 

for those of you who think a man could be better towards peace do you have any examples?

well for those of you who think a woman could be better towards peace do you have any examples?

 

and

 

for those of you who think a man could be better towards peace do you have any examples?

That is just sexist stupidity. Man, woman, it doesn't matter... We have the same organs and brains. Therefore, a woman can be just as bad a president as Bush. Or as good at peace as Ghandi (Mother Theresa comes to mind).

well when someone needs to write a paper and is having serious mind blockage it does matter

Increased muscle tissue and testosterone levels generally make better killers.

 

That's all I mean. On average, Africans are taller than Europeans. Is this true every single time? No. So is the killer part true all the time? No. but on average men have a better amount of muscle tissue and they have increased testosterone levels which is correlated with aggressiveness. All necessary for a killing machine.

Increased muscle tissue and testosterone levels generally make better killers.

 

That's all I mean. On average, Africans are taller than Europeans. Is this true every single time? No. So is the killer part true all the time? No. but on average men have a better amount of muscle tissue and they have increased testosterone levels which is correlated with aggressiveness. All necessary for a killing machine.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Patricularly in an age where you don't even have to be within fifty feet of your target to kill them now.

 

Muscle isn't needed to kill anymore. Anyone can pull a trigger.

 

And what can I say, women are just good at getting what they want, particularly from men. I'm easily manipulated by women... Ladies, I love ya'. :notworthy

I honestly don't care if you are a man, woman, straight, gay, black, white, w/e. If you want to fight and die for the US by all means go ahead, I'm not prepared to join you.

Yea, we had a discussion in my American Government class today (slightly similar to this, but reading the topic and your posts, I thought of it) about how if a draft were implimented, should men and women be allowed to be drafted rather than just men. Out of a class of 30 kids, there were only 4 who thought that men and women should be drafted equally (I happened to be one of them).

 

Sorry to hijack the thread, but it kinda relates(?) :mellow:

In the midst of a war, are groups of women better equipped than men to lead the way towards peace?

am i the only one who interpreted this question differently?

 

i personally don't see how a conscript could influence matters of war and peace, but i can definitely see how a military or political leader could shape the issue.

 

 

 

men are better-equipped to lead us to peace because:

 

- woman is a creature driven by emotion, moreso than man, who is supposedly driven by logic. women are supposedly more likely to hold grudges and act irrationally in certain situations, and in general, they are supposedly more fickle in their beliefs.

- the decision to fight wars or to continue fighting is innately influenced by emotion.

- the decision to make peace, on the other hand, is typically a product of prudence and rational thinking geared toward the overall benefit of a people. it requires differences to be set aside and grudges to be dropped.

- because men are more logic-oriented and less emotion-driven, they would be more likely to settle their differences and work toward a common peace.

- also, on the whole, society looks upon male leaders with more confidence than female leaders. a more respectable and confidence-inspiring leader would be expected to garner more respect from his counterparts at the negotiating table and have his viewpoint heard. this puts greater emphasis on the act of negotiation, so one should expect two respected leaders to be well-equipped for making compromise.

- also, people will be more accepting of the decisions made by respectable leaders. obviously this could work both ways (e.g. people being more accepting of a war), but it certainly makes a leader better "equipped" for peace when his peace treaties are received well and not questioned.

 

 

 

women are better-equipped to lead us to peace because:

 

- they are less stubborn and obstinate as men, which means they would be more open to compromise.

- they are not concerned with being macho and don't have penis fights.

- war is partly an act of machismo. women leaders are less likely to thump their chests than their male counterparts, so one would expect a female leader to get into fewer wars.

- women are less ego-driven than men. having one's way, being idolized, being "heroic," watching your enemy crumble, and "winning" everything would be of less importance to a woman.

- because women are typically more emotional, they are more saddened by bloodshed than men. emotionally, they are more averse to war, and they favor peace.

- from a psychological standpoint, a man is less likely to fight a war against a woman. similarly, a female is not very likely to fight a war against her fellow woman.

- by nature, woman is more graceful and less forceful than man. war is an act of force, while peace is an act of grace.

Increased muscle tissue and testosterone levels generally make better killers.

 

That's all I mean.? On average, Africans are taller than Europeans.? Is this true every single time?? No.? So is the killer part true all the time?? No.? but on average men have a better amount of muscle tissue and they have increased testosterone levels which is correlated with aggressiveness.? All necessary for a killing machine.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Patricularly in an age where you don't even have to be within fifty feet of your target to kill them now.

 

Muscle isn't needed to kill anymore. Anyone can pull a trigger.

 

And what can I say, women are just good at getting what they want, particularly from men. I'm easily manipulated by women... Ladies, I love ya'. :notworthy Have you ever fired a weapon? It takes strength.

 

If you gave all the weak people jobs where they "push buttons" I'm fine with that. If you are strong, then you get the strength intensive jobs. What's so bad about that?

 

Furthermore, men are more aggressive then women, so are you saing warfare takes no aggression?

 

I lvoed your counter-argument in the korea thread...

Only thing I can add to this is that women make better managers then men. It has something to do with management styles. or something...like that..

Since I misinterpreted the original intention of Ramp's post, let me answer his original question: In the midst of a war, are groups of women better equipped than men to lead the way towards peace?

 

Women and men are not as different as we would like to believe. Yes, it's true that women are more emotional, but that is because we are able to express our feelings more openly than men. Men feel the same women do, they just repress it. This doesn't mean that a woman in power is going to be crying all over her desk.

 

Women and men are equally capable of leading a country towards peace and prosperity. This has nothing to do with gender, but rather with cultural upbringing and intelligence.

 

Women can be tough and trusted political figures. Margaret Tatcher (UK) is a good example. She was Prime Minister for 11 years; the longest continually serving prime minister in 150 years.

 

Women can be a universal ray of hope. Mother Theresa, 1979 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. She dedicated the majority of her life to helping the poorest of the poor in India. Her order of nuns, the Missionaries of Charity, have grown from 12 sisters in India to over 3,000 in 517 missions throughout 100 countries worldwide.

 

So as you can see, women are just as capable of leading others towards a better future and towards peace. :thumbup

I don't know...a lot of countries had female prime ministers/leaders (peru, pakistan, Iran, UK, canada, finland, Israel, norway, and ect. Business as usual.

 

So human kind isn't capable of peace.

I don't know...a lot of countries had female prime ministers/leaders (peru, pakistan, Iran, UK, canada, finland, Israel, norway, and ect. Business as usual.

 

So human kind isn't capable of peace.

So what's your point. The question is are they more capable than men? The answer is that they're just about equally capable or uncapable.

I don't know...a lot of countries had female prime ministers/leaders (peru, pakistan, Iran, UK, canada, finland, Israel, norway, and ect. Business as usual.

 

So human kind isn't capable of peace.

So what's your point. The question is are they more capable than men? The answer is that they're just about equally capable or uncapable. I totally agree

 

and BTW I like your "American by heart"

I totally agree

 

and BTW I like your "American by heart"

:mischief It represents me exactly.

all-star...I like the ring to it

 

but to get back to topic let me just finalize my position: humans are equally bad/good at screwing stuff up. Its in our anture, and I beleive history ahs doen nothing but prove me right many many times.

Increased muscle tissue and testosterone levels generally make better killers.

 

That's all I mean.? On average, Africans are taller than Europeans.? Is this true every single time?? No.? So is the killer part true all the time?? No.? but on average men have a better amount of muscle tissue and they have increased testosterone levels which is correlated with aggressiveness.? All necessary for a killing machine.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Patricularly in an age where you don't even have to be within fifty feet of your target to kill them now.

 

Muscle isn't needed to kill anymore. Anyone can pull a trigger.

 

And what can I say, women are just good at getting what they want, particularly from men. I'm easily manipulated by women... Ladies, I love ya'. :notworthy Have you ever fired a weapon? It takes strength.

 

If you gave all the weak people jobs where they "push buttons" I'm fine with that. If you are strong, then you get the strength intensive jobs. What's so bad about that?

 

Furthermore, men are more aggressive then women, so are you saing warfare takes no aggression?

 

I lvoed your counter-argument in the korea thread... Yeah, I didn't go back to the Korea thread. Something about Hitler ending all conversations.

 

Anyways, it doesn't take strength to fire a gun. Yes, I have fired one. This isn't hundred pound string bow and arrows we're talking.

 

Women are just as capable. If you want to argue with me then come out with it. Don't pussyfoot around the fact by skirting the issue and mentioning dead threads.

dead threats? are you out of your mind?

 

You still haven't answered my counter argument: war needs aggression and men are chemically more aggressive.

 

Yeah, I didn't go back to the Korea thread. Something about Hitler ending all conversations.

Ha, nice try at trying to be condescending, but to do that, you have to appear like you know better.

 

Divert your eyes if you are a puss, don't try to pretend you are smart if you can't handle the truth.

 

 

Iran Contra numbers blown out of proportion? Hardly.

 

 

World Political Almanac (3 ed) puts it at 10,000. Nevertheless, it was a 10 year civil war between Marxist Ortega and the Democratic Contras. Since the revolution, Nicaragua has been a democracy.

 

 

And how do you think these weapons get around? Do they MAGICALLY appear from nowhere? I think not. The US and Great Britain sell them (as in the case with Iraq).

Yeah, but Russia and China sell them too. Most of Iraq's systems and weapons were Russian and Chinese.

 

And powerful bombs? Countries develop those on their own, like north korea is right now.

 

 

According to the nuclear proliferation theory everyone should be allowed Nukes so there's equal fear on all sides to press the button. Seems pretty stupid to me, but we cannot NOT allow a country to have nukes just because the leader is crazy.

 

 

I'm scared enough with Bush at the helm, now imagine Hitler or Stalin with nuclear weapons. Il is that bad.

 

 

Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. Everyone's a Hitler. Everytime we build up an enemy he's a Hitler. Why not call the leader of North Korea a Stalin? Oh, well, I'm bowing out now, because I'm of the constitution that once Hitler is brought up the conversation is over.

Il can be Stalin. I don't care, though russia didn't have organized death camp killing facilites (though they killed people nonetheless.) I'm not an ignorant fool my friend, mass state instituted genocide for beyond political reasons using death camps is closest to how the Nazis performed "the final solution." Of course, north korea is not at that scale, but its scary we haven't learned a thing since WW2.

 

 

Kind of seems hypocritical to not allow other countries the same life ending devices we have.

 

 

How so? Is it hypocritical if you have a dog and I don't? You went out and bought that Dog. Now what if that Dog is totally nuts and likes to bite people. Maybe I can trust you to lock up the dog and make sure it doesn't hurt anyone, but if I had the dog, it would be allowed to go nuts and hurt people.

 

Your logic is faulty because it goes like this:

I have X therefore everyone is entitled to X

 

that is simply not true, the logic cannot possibly be that simple, and you can put anything in for X and you will many times not agree with the outcome.

 

We have nuclear weapons therefore everyone is entitled to nuclear weapons.

I sure as hell don't agree with that.

Nonetheless, nice try Brian. You're a smart guy, but don't buy into propaganda (like America kills everyone on Earth or illogical logic and ect.)

 

 

I take back the "smart guy" part.