We have women in the military, but they don't put us in the front lines. They don't know if we can fight, if we can kill. I think we can. All the general has to do is walk over to the women and say, "You see the enemy over there? They say you look fat in those ...

Elayne Boosler quote.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Boosler. Heheh. Heh.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

haha

by Anonymous 13 years ago

tl;dr

by Anonymous 12 years ago

*waits for comment war to erupt* I reckon it should be voluntary though, so the ones who don't want to see action don't have to.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If women were allowed to fight on the front lines then they should get no more special considerations than anyone else - unless you are the sole parent or guardian or are exempt due to medical, you fight. We can't argue for the opportunity to fight and not accept the harsh realities that accompany it. And as for the size argument given forth by others, I know many girls who can more then carry that weight, it's all about working out and developing your strength.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

This reminds me of that Suite Life of Zack and Cody episode where London was on the volleyball team and she got mad and then went all pro. I'm ashamed to remember that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

LOL it reminded me of that too

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What a coincidence! The POTD reminds me of something also! ...Not the same thing, though. Please don't shun me! (cry2)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Of what? ;)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

*shun*

by Anonymous 12 years ago

SHOT THROUGH THE HEART, AND YOU'RE TOO BLAME! You give love... a bad name...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ahhh. Bon Jovi reference.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

WOAAHHH OH LIVIN ON A PRAYER

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This is funny, but in all seriousness its mainly because of hygeine. Sometimes a platoon will go 3 months without a shower, a women wouldn't be able to handle that, they'd get sick and whatnot. Also, they would have to have the strength to not only carry their ton of equipment but also their fellow infantrymen, ex. You could never imagine a chick throwing some dude over her shoulder that got shot. But the post is funny! :D

by Anonymous 13 years ago

thank you! I was just about to say that. they haave over 60 pounds of protective gear and supplies that they carry. and with the no man left behind policies, a woman wouldn't be able to carry a man and all of her equipment.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@977884 (Adam): Thank you both for giving some extras in the comments :D

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, the reasonable thing to do in that situation would be to remove some protective gear as to balance the weight properly. And it's not like the army is just plucking random women off the street, throwing them in Iraq, and telling them to "shoot the bad men". These women willingly enlisted in the army. They are well aware of the challenges, and they prepare to meet them through all means given to them.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The actual reason why women aren't on the front lines is that if one were to get injured, it is (usually unless you are a complete cock) a mans natural instinct to go to their aid, thus putting himself in danger.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, roosters are such pricks, they would never help a woman in need.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It is their instinct to help any wounded soldier, female or not. Your point?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That, and physically a woman simply cannot compete with a man. There is a reason that there has never been a female in the Navy SEALs. It isn't practical to have them in combat roles. Also, your point on hygiene is very good.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think this woman disagrees with you. http://www.sperwerslog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/jang_photo.jpg As to hygiene, Queen Elizabeth was considered to be absurdly hygienic for her time because she insisted on bathing every month. Most women in her time bathed a few times a year and only in warm weather. I have no doubt that women can handle not bathing for a couple weeks. Also combat doesn't only include running around and throwing heavy objects. There is no evidence to suggest that a woman can't fly a plane and shoot as well as any man.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I suppose that women should be on ships too? Nice enclosed space with thousands of idiotic men that are expected to refrain from relations of any kind, hormones running high. Great conditions for rape. I say no, because if the women aren't there it can't happen.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Hey yes women should be on ships. Fun fact: women are significantly less likely to be raped while they carrying a giant machine gun. Example: the woman in this picture is very unlikely to be raped: http://www.militarywoman.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40&d=1278097046 Lonely, horny men just masturbate, only psychopaths rape people. There is no excuse for rape. We should kick out the rapists, not the women. After all, a rape is always 100% the rapist's fault, we should punish them, not the victims. Also, if you're so afraid of soldiers getting raped, you should not let gay people from join the military either but that's a whole different issue. Also, rape can happen if women aren't there. Sorry to burst your bubble of innocence.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I wasn't considering gay rape, because as you said that is another issue. We could go into that too, but I'm not all for gays being in the military. Once again, conflict of interest. Furthermore, I will fully support you should you find somebody that can detect rape 100% accurately before it happens. Good luck. Other fun fact: (Aside from the "giant machine gun" most likely being too heavy - the standard issue M240 is approx. 28 lbs) I highly doubt that the woman would have it near her at all times, particularly when she needs it. Secondly, would she use it on a fellow troop? Thirdly, *most likely, for you feminists* the man would be stronger than her, and could disarm her. In the end, with so many conflicts of interest that ensue with having women on board ships with men, it isn't in everybody's best interest. You're just trying to ignore the fact that men and women are not the same - psychologically, physically, and physiologically. We aren't the same, but we are equal.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Your argument that women should not be in the military because they will be raped is ridiculous. We should get rid of the rapists, not women. If a man doesn't have the discipline and moral fiber to refrain from raping someone that man is not only unfit for the military, but unfit for society. Rapists belong in jail, not the military. Fortunately, only a teeny tiny percentage of people are actually rapists. Men don't just magically turn into psychopathic brutal rapists when they don't get laid for a few months. If someone is about to rape you. It is totally within your rights to defend yourself by any means necessary. Besides, when you are in a machine gun shooting match, it doesn't matter who is stronger. Reflexes and speed are what really count. Are you seriously worried that some women won't be able to lift 28 pounds? Seriously? 28lbs is the average weight of a two year old child. It's also about the same weight as 3 gallons of ice cream. This woman: http://www.beccaswanson.com/about/ She can bench 600lbs. So don't tell me that women will struggle to lift 28 lbs.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In that case the men are more of a problem then the women, if they really can't refrain from raping someone just because she is in an enclosed space with him, then he has no business there in the first place.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And yet if we look back in history, we see that virtually no other society had this issue of women being raped on a ship. Oh, right, because there were none. It's one thing to be fighting for women's rights, like voting, but this just shouldn't be an issue. War is for men, it always has been. It's no place to have a period, get pregnant, or, for that matter, be a distraction to other soldiers on the battlefield. It is no place for chivalry that could endanger a platoon. It is no place to be a gentleman.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, it is a women's rights issue. If she wants to, and is physically capable of doing the work, then she should be able to. Obviously, she shouldn't while pregnant, but if a man is really that distracted, then that is his own fault for not being able to pay attention to what he should be doing.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Actually, women have been in loads of wars. They've been warriors, knights, nurses, spies, soldiers, heroes, hunters, snipers, conquerors, and even pirates. Wars are the most bloody events in history, a woman's period isn't going to hurt anybody.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

When a woman is being extremely active (as one would be during training or deployment in the military), she usually would stop getting her period. That wouldn't be an issue.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Fun fact for you: Roughly 20% of women complete a year long tour on a ship in the US Navy due to rape, illness, or other undisclosed "feminine issues." go ahead and vote that down, but to my knowledge it is accurate. And that's on a ship.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think you meant to say 20% of women did NOT complete. I don't think "illness" is a problem that affects women more than men. I don't think your statistic (which you didn't cite) is substantial enough to kill thousands of women's dream of fighting for freedom on the battlefield.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, I meant what I said.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What you said didn't even make sense.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Everything you've been saying is more of an argument to remove the men, not the women. If your male soldiers can't concentrate on their job because a woman is there, then he's a fucking terrible soldier. I can carry a man on my shoulders for an extended distance because I've been trained to. Anyone can be trained and can gain physical strength. Women can not have a period for however long they want (via birth control and shots). Also, as someone said, when a women physically exerts herself for an extended period of time, her period stops (so it wouldn't be a problem anyway). Men rape men (yes, even straight men rape men), so your "theory" about rape being an issue is stupid (not to mention the obvious fact that the rapist should be removed, not the victim, as has been stated). In the RCMP the PARE (the physical fitness test) is the same for men and women, meaning everyone who gets into the RCMP is equally qualified. If you're in the army, you are qualified, or else you wouldn't be there, you wouldn't be at war. You're clearly an idiot if you honestly think a soldier would rape a woman simply because she is there.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Better yet, "Those guys cheat!" All the powers of hell would break loose in that scenario.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You again?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Her jaw must be hurting by now.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Typical woman. Talk talk talk talk...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So you're a woman?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

nah, it's her again..

by Anonymous 12 years ago

She did favorite all of Ant's posts.....

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Or give them your phone number!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

how would that help them fight in the war?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

...What war?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Or, I forgot which comedian said this, but wait until their menstrual cycles sync up, then point to the enemy and say "Those guys took the last piece of chocolate!"

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Also, women's menstrual cycles tend to group together when many of them live in the same area. So just wait for a certain time of the month and you have a ton of pissed of woman just waiting to tear off someones head. Its like the perfect secret weapon. "You dare bomb the white house? Well just wait about two weeks, and you'll be sorry!!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm sorry to ruin your joke with science. While what you said is funny, there is very little substantial evidence to suggest that menstrual synchrony actually occurs. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together&page=2

by Anonymous 12 years ago

shhh

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, no, I'm sure it does. I read it in one of my trivia books, and my trivia books do not lie to me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I stand corrected. Trivia books are always accurate. Scientific American must have made a mistake or something.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Its funny because every other unoriginal POTD lately where the author admitted it, it got completely wiped off their posts.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

ant is clearly trying to get in her pants

by Anonymous 12 years ago

iseewhatyoudidthere.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I am reading your comment with the understanding that all forms of "it" are representing the same thing.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

A woman would probably freak when they notice everyone on their side is wearing the exact same thing as her...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This is a insult to woman why does it have so Many yeah you ares?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Your comment is an insult to the English teachers of the world.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm only 12 so I do not know that much grammar yet. But I am still learning. Before you get your panties in a twist about me not being old and to young for this site let me tell you that I am mature for my age and I am sick of people hating me for it. So cut me a little slack

by Anonymous 12 years ago

We'll cut you some slack when you come back in about three or four years. ...That is, if the internet hasn't collapsed by then.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Why do you hate 12 yr olds? You where once that age before

by Anonymous 12 years ago

wear* I don't hate twelve year olds. I just don't like conceited twelve year olds who think a relative maturity amongst their peers means they have a sense of superiority that allows them to make comments naively defending something that is only being made fun of as a joke.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Where was correct. Wear is when you wear a clothing like a shirt or something. And oh look at mr. Better then I am using very big kid words like conceited! Like you know what that means

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, "were" would be correct. We WERE once that age before. Where is a question word that requests a place, as in "Where did you learn to spell?" which requests the place at which you were supposed to be taught the proper English spellings of words.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Where was correct. Wear is when you wear a clothing like a shirt or something. And oh look at mr. Better then I am using very big kid words like conceited! Like you know what that means

by Anonymous 12 years ago

by Anonymous 12 years ago

trolololol

by Anonymous 12 years ago

here's a tip...proofread, I learned that in second grade. Hope you're mature enough to understand that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm twelve and ashamed to share an age with you.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I loved your comment because it's almost every stereotype about 12 year olds.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Shut up, retard

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"You see the enemy over there? They say you should go back to the kitchen."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"...and they said your cooking was only okay!"

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Females are inferior

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Lions are inferior.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

cool story; military police is open to women, and in war, MP's do the same stuff that infantry does, like combat patrols. /cool story

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It also wouldn't work out well if they said that we can kill..

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh, so you're a girl. Okay.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think anyone will deny that men have a natural advantage to gain and retain muscle because men have higher testosterone levels. This is not to say that women cannot gain muscle or that they cannot be more muscular than men, but it takes more work than it does men. That being said, it is more likely that a man will be up to military work than a women, if selected randomly. For the work in the military, it makes sense to draft men, who are likely to be stronger. I am not against women in the military, but just mandatory military service for women(like including them in the draft). As for being on the front lines, I would expect those who are strongest--man or women--to be sent. Its not about sexism or the desire to fight, it is about ability.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Women should also be required to draft if drafting occurs, also.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

also what?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think it happens anywhere but the US if you don't live here. But basically, a draft occurs sometimes when a war is being fought. It forces a certain amount of men between the ages of 18 and 40 (I'm not sure on the range exactly) who are able-bodied to join in the war. When all men turn 18 they have to do some paperwork for the government so that if there is ever a draft the government will be able to include them in the random selection. Women don't take part in the draft. Yep, the world obviously needs more feminists. (That was sarcasm, if you didn't know.)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Actually feminists are the ones fighting for the equal rights amendment to the constitution "Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Because this is not in the U.S constitution the military can exclude women from positions, not based on ability, but just because they were born female. That is also why the Supreme Court ruled that only drafting men (if a draft was needed) is constitutional as the positions needed to be filled are excluded from women anyway. This situation isn't really fair on men or women and should be changed.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There are few feminists who are truly just fighting for equal rights. Most of them, from my experience, are really just man haters. Here's a good example: (Especially at the end of the video for femi-nazis)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Then they're not feminist, they're sexist.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Definitions can change. They call themselves feminists, and the majority of people who do so are them.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But by definition someone believing their sex is the greater sex is sexist. There are feminists who want equality, that's feminism. The definitions haven't changed, the "femanazis" simply have a louder voice because they're nuts.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Alright, let's look at it this way, if you don't like my other arguments. Feminism isn't called equalism, or something of that nature. If you look at the word, you can see the Femin, which clearly is about the female sex. Sure, in the past society was sexist towards women, but to be a feminist today simply implies female dominance.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't agree. I call myself a feminist because I believe we are equal and I'll fight for that. Of course it is about the female sex, that's because we have yet to be treated as total equals, and women had to literally fight for it not too long ago (and still do in many parts of the world). There are male equal rights activists as well. I do not believe feminism is about female dominance, that's stupid as no sex is greater. Femanazis and sexist women exist and are louder than your average feminist (which is something that should change, as who wants a crazy to represent them by default?). I think the majority of feminists are women who simply want equality. We need to change which voice is being heard the loudest.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Females are equals now. You can't possibly disagree on that. In fact, society is sexist towards males, not only most feminists. There are women against feminism as well. Some examples of women having more rights than men: -Women are 70.7% of nonreciprocal domestic violence perpetrators; but, no shelters exist for battered men. (American Psychiatric Association) -Women are 20% of suicides, while men represent 80%; but, special counseling services are focused on female depression. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Center for Health Statistics) -The federal government supports small businesses that are owned by women; but, it does not support small businesses that are owned by men. (Department of Defense Office of Small Business Programs) -Men are more likely to die from every major cause of death, and yet no Office on Mens Health exists. Only a Office on Womens Health does. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center for Health Statistics) I could go on.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm not going to argue against that, I know sexism exists against men. There are ways in which women and men are not equal which are against men. Also, there are ways in which they aren't equal which are against women. It's all stupid. We should be equal. There should be shelters for people who need it, regardless of their gender. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, I'm saying it needs to change. Also, feminism isn't just about women in my country. Women are NOT equal in many parts of the world, and that is a part of feminism. But maybe "equalist" would be a better term for me. I get as angry and upset about women abusing men as I do about men abusing women. I have a friend who was abused for so long by his girlfriend, but nobody seemed to care. That's not ok.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, I agree with you, and I realize that women aren't tried equally everywhere. The main reason I posted my previous post was because of when you said "Of course it is about the female sex, that's because we have yet to be treated as total equals."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well yes, that is what feminism is. Both genders are treated unequally against each other. However, feminism is more than just what's going on in the US or Canada or countries like ours. There are places where women are still treated as objects, bought and sold and all the terrible things women have fought against forever. I think we may be on the same page here. I just think "feminism" has a bad name because of all the sexist female jerks.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But my main point is that even though in a lot of 3rd world countries society is sexist towards women, a word like feminism can't describe striving for equality unless all sexism is ENTIRELY towards women. However, I do agree with you in saying that we're pretty much on the same page.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think so, feminism is about striving to get rid of sexism towards women. I'm all for feminism and maleism(?) or equalism.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well Feminism must be only about women because of the way its written.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well yes, but I mean feminism as in equality for females worldwide. I'm still all for equalism as well.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But what's the point in being only feminist? That in itself, if you accept the definition that it HAS to be centered around the female sex, is sexist.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But feminism is about bringing females up to equal standards with men. That's not sexist. However, on this side of the world there are issues where men are not considered equal and vice versa, where equalism is reasonable. Does that make sense?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But since men and women both need to be brought up, just focusing on bringing women up to equal standards with men and not focusing on bringing men up to equal standards with women is sexist. It would be if the same if there was only "masculism."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well I think it depends on where in the world you're talking about, because there are places where feminism is needed. Here, where I live, I believe equalism is needed.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What I'm trying to say is that everyone lives on Earth, and I'm not focusing on sections of the world individually. Also, if you're striving for women to have equal rights in Iran, or something, then what you're really looking for is equality.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I suppose that makes sense. I mean there definitely was a time when feminism was needed, as women were not treated as equals worldwide. Feminism is about bringing women up to equal status with men.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I just find the word "Feminism" itself too imply something like women are better...ism. Because as I said before, when women were treated unequally almost worldwide (almost because Amazons haha (although I'm actually unsure if they were real, tbh haha)) they needed to be equal, not to be better.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But feminism isn't about being better, that's just straight up sexism. Maybe we just grew up around different feminists so our ideas of what feminism implies are different?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That is possible, but mainly what I'm thinking is just since the word is based around female, feminine, etc. Of course, it was almost completely women who needed to be brought up before, but now being a "feminist" means you're working for the rights of women, and ignoring the injustices towards men.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't necessarily agree with that, though. You can be a feminist and an equalist and an animal rights activist or whatever you want. It doesn't mean to bring women above men nor that men are less important. It just means that women are not equal and we should be. I'd call myself a feminist but that doesn't mean I don't recognize that there is sexism to wards men that I believe should change.

by Anonymous 12 years ago