women on front line
yes why not
Side Score: 21
|
 |
certainly not
Side Score: 16
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
1
point
And your party was even warned about what was coming per their opting out of laws that they didn't like. Side: certainly not
1
point
This is the heading of the post women on front line women are leading all walks of life, except their much presence on the front line/combat forces. should we make some room for them on battle fields too? Is Ronda Rousey mentioned if you have the ability to really read ? Side: yes why not
|
No, women are much better adapted at attending to the clothesline than trying to handle weapons which are too heavy for them to carry or use effectively on the battlefield's frontline. An attacking battalion of Russian Special Forces wouldn't abort their onslaught by receiving a solicitor's letter advising them of legal action being taken against them under the sex discrimination on the battlefield legislation. Laws have to be passed to ensure that females are unfairly appointed to positions and receive promotions which they don't merit due to employers being wary of the expense involved in falling foul of the sexism laws. Side: certainly not
That's the point. They cannot ''pass the test'' so the rules are bent in such a way that effectively there is a two tier gender system for assessing the capabilities of those applying to join the armed forces. Answer this question honestly, to yourself;- as a police officer you're assigned to patrol a rough neighbourhood with a choice of one accompanying colleague, one male and the other female. Question 1)Which would you choose? What I want to know is;- Question 2) If females are so god damned capable, where are the international commercial/industrial corporations or global financial institutions which were founded and developed by women? In many countries, from Brazil to the U.K, they've passed laws which force corporate businesses to appoint a stipulated percentage of females onto the board of directors. Question 3) Where is the fairness or the freedom for management to exercise their professional skills and intuitive business acumen in being ''blackmailed by governments into employing females regardless of merit or suitability for the available post? Question 4) If job appointments or promotions should be conducted strictly on a ''merit only ''basis, why do governments impose statutory requirements on companies to employ a specified number of females at senior management level? Question 5) What do you think would be the outcry if such gender bias legislation was passed favouring males? Question 6) it's a long one;- why is it that virtually every invention or discovery which has led to advancement and welfare of mankind was made by the male of the species. These include, The computer you're using. The language in which you're communicating. Electricity, The light bulb. The telephone. Television. Radio. X-Ray. The internet. Mass production. Innovative advertising and marketing methods. The automobile. The internal combustion engine' The diesel engine. The jet engine. The aeroplane. Space going rockets. Ocean going liners. Submarines. High yield farming techniques. Penicillin. Most life saving and pain relieving drugs. Modern medical operating techniques including the use of anesthetics and antiseptics? Clearly you're a clever and well read individual and if you're totally objective and honest with yourself you will, or at least should recognise that the practise of artificially placing females in important positions simply to abide by stupid laws legislated by those who've never had to run a major business is a very dangerous development in the ever advancing self defeating culture of political correctness. Side: certainly not
2
points
If you want equality then gender shouldn't be a factor. Only competent people should be allowed to enter positions. If you give a position to someone because she is a female, that is gender inequality. If a woman by nature does not posses the physical features for war, that is just what it is. Many are women good in cosmetology, and only a few men are involved in that field, how many men do you hear complaon about equality. It's like a world of people born vegetarians/herbivores and carnivores. Naturally no matter how much a curious herbivore may try to eat carnivorenically it can never lead the carnivores. (The opposite applies). its just what it is This is not inequality it's just identifying, unique naturally specialised talents and separating them. This is called order. It may take 20women to push a car but will take just 5men to push the same car.Common sense should tell anyone the facts here. Plus a woman's speech can rarely motivate men at war. They don't understand men psychology. Have you watched queen of the south. Season 1 episode 1~5. Side: certainly not
1
point
"Affirmative action" you just develop some slogan regardless of what it actually entails in reality then you begin to promote it so that you look cool in the media. "if women are capable of the military job then give it to then because men have plenty more opportunities." If is the condition. So if they are not capable they shouldn't be allowrd right ? Apparently(physically and historically), 90%+ of them are incapable. You want to jeopardise security because of the agenda some mindless creatures called feminists? Side: yes why not
|
