Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I wonder if Zeal would make the same statement about shoehorning women into the right to vote?
But he doesn't hate them.
Not one bit.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm not victim blaming at all. I'm not saying that it's the fault of women. I'm saying that if you have women in the military, they will be raped. Period. The best way to keep them from getting raped is to keep them out of the military.
Men get raped in the military too. Army of eunuchs?
Originally posted by dadudemonStar Trek, meh.
I like the idea of that Star Trek: TNG episode where that planet had a female dominated society. The men were smaller and weaker than the women and the women ruled the extreme majority of everything...
*sigh*
Originally posted by dadudemonIMHO...
just trying to figure out why humans are so rapey.
We duh best.
Originally posted by dadudemon
On another note: if it is so common (and common knowledge) for women to get raped in the military, WTF are girls thinking when they join up? Are they thinking, "That shit won't happen to me"?
Soldiers also get killed and maimed, you know, every soldier goes in with knowledge that the job has serious risks. The mentality is supposedly "I want to serve my country, the risk is worth it do that" or sometimes "I have few other choices and they give me good benefits if I get through it, the risk is worth it". I can't think of a reason these wouldn't also apply to women who join the army, even if the added risks weight the decision toward not joining.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Soldiers also get killed and maimed, you know, every soldier goes in with knowledge that the job has serious risks. The mentality is supposedly "I want to serve my country, the risk is worth it do that" or sometimes "I have few other choices and they give me good benefits if I get through it, the risk is worth it". I can't think of a reason these wouldn't also apply to women who join the army, even if the added risks weight the decision toward not joining.
Do 1/3 of all armed services members definitely get killed?
Do 74% of them definitely get sexually assaulted in some way (raped is one of them)?
Those that join the marines almost always know what they want to do when they join (field ops, communications, mess hall (this is what my godbrother joined the marines for: no shit), some want to work on an aircraft carrir, etc. Some idiot rednecks (some I actually know) actually say, "I want to die for my country." So, yes, some people join knowing full well that they can die and they want to see combat 'in the shit'. No girl joins up and says, "Man, I hope I get raped." WTF!?!?! It's called "rape" because it isn't wanted.
Originally posted by inimalist
but lets compare scenariosif 1/3 women in university were being raped, would the answer be women can't get educated or that the universities aren't doing enough to protect women and police their own campuses?
No, separate but equal institutions.
😆 😆 😆 😆
I keed! I keed!
They could definitely separate out genders and some colleges are like that.
Edit - However, I would distinguish armed services with volitional education. A soldier or officer does NOT have as many rights as a regular citizen. This is something people need to consider before joining. It is a noble cause, for sure, to serve you fellow-man. However, it comes with consequences. College? Meh, you don't have to go. You can do it all online, too. No reason to risk rape if it was epidemic in college. Also, it's pretty easy to avoid rape in college. When you're one woman among 130 men in a desert with no way to quickly travel from location to location, it is a bit more difficult to escape the rape.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do 1/3 of all armed services members definitely get killed?Do 74% of them definitely get sexually assaulted in some way (raped is one of them)?
Those that join the marines almost always know what they want to do when they join (field ops, communications, mess hall (this is what my godbrother joined the marines for: no shit), some want to work on an aircraft carrir, etc. Some idiot rednecks (some I actually know) actually say, "I want do die for my country." So, yes, some people join knowing full well that they can die and they want to see combat 'in the shit'. No girl joins up and says, "Man, I hope I get raped." WTF!?!?! It's called "rape" because it isn't wanted.
but isn't this sort of a backward way of looking at it anyways?
if a woman meets the physical qualification to be in the army, isn't it the army's responsibility to make sure nobody commits a federal criminal offense against them?
such staggering numbers seem to indicate a failure in the army rather than in women (which is born out in many of the rape cases I've heard about, as officers try to brush them under the rug and protect the soldiers responsible).
Its like, abuse of the mentally handicapped and elderly is alarmingly high in care facilities. By this logic, we should just stop sending people who need care into such facilities, rather than addressing the issue of people working there that need to be stopped from abusing them.
The same could be said of people who prey on children in terms of scouts, churches and schools.
I don't see the logic behind the "women shouldn't have rights because we refuse to protect them" argument... not that i think you are explicitly making it...
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, separate but equal institutions.😆 😆 😆 😆
I keed! I keed!
They could definitely separate out genders and some colleges are like that.
to be honest, if that were actually the case in universities, I wouldn't be entirely against separate institutions as a pragmatic and sort of temporary solution
Its more like what I was saying above, that women are being abused is not really a problem with the women...
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do 1/3 of all armed services members definitely get killed?Do 74% of them definitely get sexually assaulted in some way (raped is one of them)?
STRAWMAN BAAWW STRAWMANN BAWW BAWWWW
There are serious risks associated with the position. Men who join the organization are aware of them and join anyway. The greater risks for women don't make me think there's a different thought process going on just that they're going to be less likely to join because of it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Those that join the marines almost always know what they want to do when they join (field ops, communications, mess hall (this is what my godbrother joined the marines for: no shit), some want to work on an aircraft carrir, etc. Some idiot rednecks (some I actually know) actually say, "I want to die for my country." So, yes, some people join knowing full well that they can die and they want to see combat 'in the shit'.
Why exactly are women incapable of having these thoughts? These and the reasons I listed seem like the most likely reasons for a person to join the army despite the risks involved.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No girl joins up and says, "Man, I hope I get raped." WTF!?!?! It's called "rape" because it isn't wanted.
WHAT? Where did you get this from what I posted?
Originally posted by inimalist
but isn't this sort of a backward way of looking at it anyways?if a woman meets the physical qualification to be in the army, isn't it the army's responsibility to make sure nobody commits a federal criminal offense against them?
such staggering numbers seem to indicate a failure in the army rather than in women (which is born out in many of the rape cases I've heard about, as officers try to brush them under the rug and protect the soldiers responsible).
Its like, abuse of the mentally handicapped and elderly is alarmingly high in care facilities. By this logic, we should just stop sending people who need care into such facilities, rather than addressing the issue of people working there that need to be stopped from abusing them.
The same could be said of people who prey on children in terms of scouts, churches and schools.
I don't see the logic behind the "women shouldn't have rights because we refuse to protect them" argument... not that i think you are explicitly making it...
Ahem, I am the one that suggested beating the shit out of the rapers and throwing them in solitary confinement for 5 years. (but we'd have to have perfect AV recordings, 24/7)
Originally posted by inimalist
to be honest, if that were actually the case in universities, I wouldn't be entirely against separate institutions as a pragmatic and sort of temporary solutionIts more like what I was saying above, that women are being abused is not really a problem with the women...
Well, most 18-24 year old women/men I know that attend an university do so to "live life" and get an education. There's more pragmatic ways to get an education than traveling really far and living on campus. Obviously, they are not going to college for an education, alone (for example, a 2-year college here in Oklahoma has a more certified and sophisticated Cyber Security program than the 4 year program at MIT. A friggin' state school...). They also, unless they are "tarded", know that rape is a very real possibility when attending after-school social activities. The same goes with joining the military. I would expect women to be more cautious about joining the military than a girl going to a frat party, tbh. Why? Because you go to a frat party to get drunk/high and get laid (I know there are many more reasons...bleh...bite me). You join the military for employment and to serve your country: not get raped. I don't think any sane woman joins the military to get raped.
But take a step back: about 3/4 women get sexually assaulted in the US Military. That's not really "I'll take my chances"...that's "I will most likely get violated." Even the 1/3 rape chance is a bit high for my "reasonable" tastes.
Man, I am getting more and more disgusted with this conversation. Why the **** is the US Military so ****ed up? I'm all about equality but some things are too far.
I do not know what the solution is. The only way to be sure is to bar women from serving in the military OR to keep them completely separate...always. Only have female COs, keep them on separate bases, etc. That's a bit too "equal but separate" for me.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
STRAWMAN BAAWW STRAWMANN BAWW BAWWWW
That's not a strawman. I did not misrepresent your argument and argue against it. I pointed out the parallel in the original topic that you provided an example to.
Discussion is about apples.
You suggest that apples are oranges.
I suggest that we are apples are not oranges.
You then cry "strawman" (literally...you bawwed and everything. lol)
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The greater risks for women don't make me think there's a different thought process going on just that they're going to be less likely to join because of it.
Keep in mind that I never actually took a stance: I asked a question. I am/was genuinely curious as to why women join when such staggering and disgusting stats are "knowable and present". I honestly do not know and the answer would be individualized.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
These and the reasons I listed seem like the most likely reasons for a person to join the army despite the risks involved.
You already stated that the women obviously have greater risks due to the rapiness of the military. So they really do have the thoughts about "serving the country"...but very few men have to consider, "Oh shit...I'm going to get raped in a porta-potty."
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
WHAT? Where did you get this from what I posted?
1. You mad, bro?
2. Not all words I type are supposed to be in opposition to things you posted.
3. The point is rather clear: no one joins the military to get raped.
See exhibit A for why you actually with me on this point:
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
These and the reasons I listed seem like the most likely reasons for a person to join the army despite the risks involved.
4. So there's no reason to get your panties in a bunch. You actually agree with my point. 🙂
5. Capisce?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do 1/3 of all armed services members definitely get killed?Do 74% of them definitely get sexually assaulted in some way (raped is one of them)?
Those that join the marines almost always know what they want to do when they join (field ops, communications, mess hall (this is what my godbrother joined the marines for: no shit), some want to work on an aircraft carrir, etc. Some idiot rednecks (some I actually know) actually say, "I want to die for my country." So, yes, some people join knowing full well that they can die and they want to see combat 'in the shit'. No girl joins up and says, "Man, I hope I get raped." WTF!?!?! It's called "rape" because it isn't wanted.
parading patently false figures and cherry picking anecdotal evidence concerning these 2 or 3 supposedly suicidal soldiers who want to be killed doesn't negate his point. no one ever signed up to say "i wouldnt mind being blown up by a roadside bomb for my country", but they know its a possibility. rape is just one of a number of horrible and, most importantly, dreaded consequences of military service. women simply have one more potential consequence.
since we're on the topic, if you had no choice and had to choose one, would it be:
1-being blasted in half by a roadside bomb...once
2-having a rapists member penetrate you're anus...once.
which would you favor?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
parading patently false figures
1. I don't think you quoted the correct person.
If you really did direct that towards me, you're either 2. trolling or an 3. idiot; my money is on 2 (possibly 1) because that's your favorite thing to do.
Edit - You're right: it's 69% or 86.6%, not 74%. My bad. 😐
http://www.ncdsv.org/images/PrevalenceIn-ServicePost-ServiceSexualAssault.pdf
The original number came from the article I posted on the last page...but that one was 71%. 😐
Originally posted by focus4chumps
and cherry picking anecdotal evidence concerning these 2 or 3 supposedly suicidal soldiers who want to be killed doesn't negate his point.
Yeah, you definitely quoted the wrong person.
Edit - On second thought, you did intend to quote me. You probably live on the East Coast of the US. It's a bit different here in the Bible Belt. Yes, young, stupid men say shit like that quite frequently...especially shortly after the terror events that occurred on 9-11. I'll be flexible and assume that you just don't know that many people that are serving or have served in the military.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
no one ever signed up to say "i wouldnt mind being blown up by a roadside bomb for my country",
This is a strawman and is not what I paraphrased from...wait for it...real life people that joined the marines.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
rape is just one of a number of horrible and, most importantly, dreaded consequences of military service. women simply have one more potential consequence.
While I do appreciate you reposting what inimalist and I have already posted, it is unnecessary. But I'd like to point out that women face more than just "one more" consequence in military service, above and beyond their male counterparts.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
since we're on the topic, if you had no choice and had to choose one, would it be:1-being blasted in half by a roadside bomb...once
2-having a rapists member penetrate you're anus...once.
which would you favor?
I'd choose 3
3. Stay out of the military and go to college for years and years.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I wonder if Zeal would make the same statement about shoehorning women into the right to vote?
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Given the Founding Fathers wanted only white property owners to vote, I think a society without women voters would not be inherently terrible. It would have deterred feminism. And for another, total democracy is a shitty system. And for a third, there were women against women's suffrage. So no, I don't care if women have the right to vote.
Here's the thing about suffrage: the women don't have to vote that think women should not have the right to vote. That applies to the extreme minority of black people that think black people should not have the right to vote in America: don't vote if you don't think you should have that right.
That's what is awesome about individual rights: if you don't think you should have them, don't exercise them. That means everyone is happy.
Here's the thing about suffrage: the women don't have to vote that think women should not have the right to vote.
Ultimately, what did women do when they had the right to vote? Elected Harding. And before that, they pushed for Prohibition. Not exactly a good start.
It's kind of like the argument of gay marriage: WELL YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET ONE THEN. Well, no, because gay marriage is going to result in long-term ramifications that aren't going to be apparent until thirty years have passed and we can look back with our hindsight.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Allowing women the right to vote was a huge social upheaval that transformed our society.
Not really, actually. It was more based on the principle of the matter than actually creating change. It wasn't until the feminist movement of the 60s that we saw a large feminist impact on Americans.
The Civil Rights Act, however, had a huge socially transformative impact...and nicely coincides with the feminist movement of the 60s.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The argument that women against suffrage made is that a husband should vote for his entire family and that allowing women to vote would result in social destabilization.
In your ideal world, because they stay at home, the women have more time to watch TV, surf the web, read blogs, and read paper stuffs than their husbands. So they should get to vote and the men shouldn't. They would have more time to educate themselves while he men worked. The women could form voting groups and meet about politics during the day while their husband worked. Then the men would come home and tell their wives about their daily woes at work and the women could use that as fuel for how they would vote.
What now, son? estahuh
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Were they right? Well, it allowed feminism to flourish, which discourages the traditional family unit and pushes for female promiscuity, so yes, I think they were.
What's wrong with female promiscuity in a birth-control world? Do we have STDs left? The men already brought those home to their women, so that's not a good argument.
My personal religious beliefs say that everyone should calm the **** down and wait until they are married. That's not possible for everyone, obviously. So I don't see why we should single women out when we should be singling men out even more: they do more raping (meaning, the women consent to sex less often than men...so the men should be held more accountable than the women for "promiscuity"😉.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ultimately, what did women do when they had the right to vote? Elected Harding. And before that, they pushed for Prohibition. Not exactly a good start.
Dude, the female vote for Harding was literally negligble. Subtract every vote for Harding in the 1920 presidential election and Harding STILL wins by a landslide. Men had out-voted women in elections up to about the 1980 presidential election. Harding would have won regardless of the female vote.
Prohibition started a full 3 years before the 19th amendment past. Three entire years. How were women supposed to "vote" for and push Prohibition through when it had started 3 years before they got the right to vote (women didn't even get the right to vote until August or September of 1920 when the 19th amendment passed). Before the 18th amendment came along, the Wartime act was the legislation that actually started the real prohibition of alcohol. Again, that was BEFORE 1920. If you want to blame anyone for prohibition, blame the Christians (Methodists). The women's involvement? They were tired of getting their asses beat and their children's asses beat by their drunken husbands: hardly something to fault them for advocating against. Sure, they had advocacy groups but the blame is more on religion than it is women.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
It's kind of like the argument of gay marriage: WELL YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET ONE THEN.
But that's a good argument. As long as I am not forced to marry homosexuals or allow homosexuals to marry in my church where we think it is wrong, then I am not opposed to what two consenting adults do in their own time (meaning, the secular world can do whatever they want...hell, they can form their own churches and make it a religious rite(<---this is not a typo) for all I care). I am quite sure most of them don't care what I do in my church, either.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Well, no, because gay marriage is going to result in long-term ramifications that aren't going to be apparent until thirty years have passed and we can look back with our hindsight.
What are those ramifications? From the way I see it, the gay rights craze and social culture will wain, the population of people that identify themselves as "gay" will stabilize and everyone will move along with their life not even giving a ****...like I do now. Kind of like we do now with women suffrage. 🙂
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Given the Founding Fathers wanted only white property owners to vote, I think a society without women voters would not be inherently terrible. It would have deterred feminism. And for another, total democracy is a shitty system. And for a third, there were women against women's suffrage. So no, I don't care if women have the right to vote.
It's impossible to make a caricature of you...
What's wrong with female promiscuity in a birth-control world? Do we have STDs left? The men already brought those home to their women, so that's not a good argument.
More importantly, I believe the family unit is the structural building block of society. It's a stabilizing factor. It's how parents raise their children and instill values into them. Promiscuity devalues this because it says "go, **** who you want when you want, and maybe get married at some point down the line."
Prohibition started a full 3 years before the 19th amendment past. Three entire years. How were women supposed to "vote" for and push Prohibition through when it had started 3 years before they got the right to vote (women didn't even get the right to vote until August or September of 1920 when the 19th amendment passed). Before the 18th amendment came along, the Wartime act was the legislation that actually started the real prohibition of alcohol. Again, that was BEFORE 1920. If you want to blame anyone for prohibition, blame the Christians (Methodists). The women's involvement? They were tired of getting their asses beat and their children's asses beat by their drunken husbands: hardly something to fault them for advocating against. Sure, they had advocacy groups but the blame is more on religion than it is women.
But that's a good argument. As long as I am not forced to marry homosexuals or allow homosexuals to marry in my church where we think it is wrong, then I am not opposed to what two consenting adults do in their own time (meaning, the secular world can do whatever they want...hell, they can form their own churches and make it a religious rite(<---this is not a typo) for all I care). I am quite sure most of them don't care what I do in my church, either.