NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorta influenced by the stupid women need to be the kitchen crap thread.

Personally, i would be pissed if my wife got to stay home with the kids and cook. She's bringing home the bacon like me dammit. In any event I believe we have limited roles where women are not needed or able to do a certain type of job only a man could be able to do.

a) Combat ~ military. I personally have never met a women who is stronger than me. Even a women who was into wieght lifting could not out perform me at the gym. ( I did just barely beat her, but still she was a big chick)
So that means as a fairly big man not huge but pretty big I can kick the crap out of any women i have ever met. In a combat role how are you as a average women going to keep up to me a 200 pound guy?

b) ummmmmm thats it. lol

I dont see any other areas where women would not be able to do a good job as well as a man.

Your views....

I agree. Women shouldnt be in combat roles.

Kick 'em in the nuts. That'll fix 'em.

Women are tough. Gender biases aside, there are sissy women who's biggest worry is breaking a nail and having a hair out of place. But, women who enter the military, probably are there for a few reasons, one of which is to kick some serious ass. Plus, consider the weight of the idea that one of their beloeved is threatened. Women CAN be pretty scary.

If a women can preform a job in the military good or better than a man, I see no problem letting her serve our country.

Well I can introduce you to a coworkers daughter that could kick the living hell out of just about anybody here.

She teaches hand to hand in the Israeli army.

A Russian woman sniper in WWII bagged about 80 or so Germans.

A woman with a gun can kill as good as a male.

If a women could pass male combat training tests, maybe i could see them enlisting for combat. I just dont see them as being able to do that very often...

Kick 'em in the nuts. That'll fix 'em.

Women are tough. Gender biases aside, there are sissy women who's biggest worry is breaking a nail and having a hair out of place. But, women who enter the military, probably are there for a few reasons, one of which is to kick some serious ass. Plus, consider the weight of the idea that one of their beloeved is threatened. Women CAN be pretty scary.

Indeed. Women have developed tolerances to pain that we as men can barely fathom. That and they have the distinct advantage of wearing their genitals on the inside. *nod*

Not all combat is melee combat. Sometimes it is melee combat and it can happen a lot in close-quarters situations like urban warfare. However, a lot of fighting is also gunfighting, where aim is much more important. Additionally, if you're well trained, then I imagine that you can outmaneuver and defeat a stronger opponent.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

In a combat role how are you as a average women going to keep up to me a 200 pound guy?

By shooting your brains out, or your balls off.

What about a woman serving in a battletank ? or as pilot ?

I can sorta see your point if you mean frontline infantry, but inside a vehicle of some sort physical strength doesnt really matter.

Not all combat is melee combat. Sometimes it is melee combat and it can happen a lot in close-quarters situations like urban warfare. However, a lot of fighting is also gunfighting, where aim is much more important. Additionally, if you're well trained, then I imagine that you can outmaneuver and defeat a stronger opponent.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation


Sure, if they could keep up with the rest of the unit with all the gear they have to lug around. Good luck to the average women in pulling that off...

And better hope that baddie doesnt get ontop of you the female soldier...

Well I can introduce you to a coworkers daughter that could kick the living hell out of just about anybody here.

She teaches hand to hand in the Israeli army.

A Russian woman sniper in WWII bagged about 80 or so Germans.

A woman with a gun can kill as good as a male.


All of these are valid points, but I dont feel women should be in combat roles. I think combat and killing should be done by men, until such time as there is no choice.

Heh, yeah. War is supposedly the last resort of machos. Time that ends. :D

I don't neccessarily agree that women shouldn't be in combat roles, but yes that field is limited because of physical status.

And when women do enlist, they can be serious badasses. Don't you know the 3/4 of the worlds best assassins are women?

Sure, let women fight if they want to. It increases your pool of available manpower (notice I use man in a gender nuetral way, obviously I am sexist). Soldiers should have the same standard of fitness for both men and women. It should be the standard that is currently assigned to men. In other words higher standards for women. If they can pass this standard they are in.
Pregnacy, rape and so forth in the trenches should be dealt with harshly. I think a man who commits rape against a fellow soldier should face the death penalty if DNA evidence proves him guilty. This would provide a deterrent to male soldiers taking advantage.

Sorta influenced by the stupid women need to be the kitchen crap thread.

Personally, i would be pissed if my wife got to stay home with the kids and cook. She's bringing home the bacon like me dammit. In any event I believe we have limited roles where women are not needed or able to do a certain type of job only a man could be able to do.

a) Combat ~ military. I personally have never met a women who is stronger than me. Even a women who was into wieght lifting could not out perform me at the gym. ( I did just barely beat her, but still she was a big chick)
So that means as a fairly big man not huge but pretty big I can kick the crap out of any women i have ever met. In a combat role how are you as a average women going to keep up to me a 200 pound guy?

b) ummmmmm thats it. lol

I dont see any other areas where women would not be able to do a good job as well as a man.

Your views....
Oh, man... I know for a fact I could beat the crap out of you. :D

Indeed. Women have developed tolerances to pain that we as men can barely fathom. That and they have the distinct advantage of wearing their genitals on the inside. *nod*
Exactly.

And, there are also plenty of soft wussy men out there who couldn't fight for beans. Gender means nothing.

Women are fantastically more adept at adapting to their surroundings much faster than a male equivilent, they're much better at surveying their surroundings faster and retaining the data much longer than their male counterparts, and they are traditionally much better at strategic planning involving socially awkward scenarios.

Sorta influenced by the stupid women need to be the kitchen crap thread.

Personally, i would be pissed if my wife got to stay home with the kids and cook. She's bringing home the bacon like me dammit. In any event I believe we have limited roles where women are not needed or able to do a certain type of job only a man could be able to do.

a) Combat ~ military. I personally have never met a women who is stronger than me. Even a women who was into wieght lifting could not out perform me at the gym. ( I did just barely beat her, but still she was a big chick)
So that means as a fairly big man not huge but pretty big I can kick the crap out of any women i have ever met. In a combat role how are you as a average women going to keep up to me a 200 pound guy?

b) ummmmmm thats it. lol

I dont see any other areas where women would not be able to do a good job as well as a man.

Your views....

Ever hear of the Isreali military. As a former Marine, I can tell you women are usually much better shots than men. Women tend to follow instruction better and think more about doing their best and less about how being bigger than someone else's means anything when you're pointing guns at each other. I'll point out that as a 200 lb. man I am a much bigger target than a 100 lb. woman.

Course women should be able to fight if they can pass the same tests to enter the army as men. I don't think anyone did explain why the entry tests are different for men and women?

Oh, man... I know for a fact I could beat the crap out of you. :D
Can I help? :D

Can I help? :D
Nah, the two of us? That wouldn't be fair for poor little Jay. :p I got this! ;)

All of these are valid points, but I dont feel women should be in combat roles. I think combat and killing should be done by men, until such time as there is no choice.

On the contrary, i think that men should be prohibited from combat! :D

Yeah, women cant handle a full set of chain and plate and certainly havent the skills with a claymore or the 3' mace. :rolleyes:

Sure, if they could keep up with the rest of the unit with all the gear they have to lug around. Good luck to the average women in pulling that off...

And better hope that baddie doesnt get ontop of you the female soldier...

As a Marine, women humped (carried) the same gear I did, the same distance I did, at the same pace I did. Are they able to match me in every way? No. Do they need to? No. They are able to carry the gear required and perform the actions required. It's just that simple.

If a women could pass male combat training tests, maybe i could see them enlisting for combat. I just dont see them as being able to do that very often...
Bingo! Well upwards of 95% of women in the army cannot pass the same physical standards as men. I believe it's above 99% as well but I'm unsure.

Course women should be able to fight if they can pass the same tests to enter the army as men. I don't think anyone did explain why the entry tests are different for men and women?
That makes perfect sense! I agree. If a woman can't pass it, there is a good reason. If she does, why keep her from fighting? One less snivelling mama's boy to send into combat.

Sure, if they could keep up with the rest of the unit with all the gear they have to lug around. Good luck to the average women in pulling that off...

Ther should be a simple policy on this. If they don't keep up to the required standards then they should not be allowed in a combat situation. Those watered down tests are stupid.

And better hope that baddie doesnt get ontop of you the female soldier...

Theres more to combat then brue strength. I get my ass kicked on a regular basis, and I'm a big guy.

a) Combat ~ military. I personally have never met a women who is stronger than me. Even a women who was into wieght lifting could not out perform me at the gym. ( I did just barely beat her, but still she was a big chick)
So that means as a fairly big man not huge but pretty big I can kick the crap out of any women i have ever met. In a combat role how are you as a average women going to keep up to me a 200 pound guy

Not all hand to hand combat is about strength. Many styles of combat rely on using your opponents strength against them, which is considerably more affective against a 200 pound guy than against a lighter guy. Strength means next to nothing in reality. Finnesse, speed, skill, and accuracy are much more important.

That makes perfect sense! I agree. If a woman can't pass it, there is a good reason. If she does, why keep her from fighting? One less snivelling mama's boy to send into combat.


And whats the policy if a female soldier becomes pregnant and cannot fulfill her duties? Is there any policy? Just something I am wondering.

What about a woman serving in a battletank ? or as pilot ?

I can sorta see your point if you mean frontline infantry, but inside a vehicle of some sort physical strength doesnt really matter.

True, but flying a combat plane takes great stamina. I was thinking more of infanty though...

Oh, man... I know for a fact I could beat the crap out of you. :D


'BAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH'

i would crush you puny girl

'BAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH'

i would crush you puny girl
Seriously, do you have any combat training whatsoever? In hand-to-hand I know I could beat you; I am well practiced in the martial arts, including judo and karate. Heh. You probably don't even know what judo is. :p

Bingo! Well upwards of 95% of women in the army cannot pass the same physical standards as men. I believe it's above 99% as well but I'm unsure.

On any given day, most men in the army can't pass the tests for Marines. Should men in the Army be allowed in combat? Of course, because Marines have a different job than many people in the Army. Women who are required to perform at same level as men, because they have a job the necessitates it, do. Many of the grunts in the Army can't perform at the same level as the administrative women in intellectual testing. What does THAT mean? Nothing, because the intellectual tests have nothing to do with the grunts' jobs. So congratulations, you just make the argument that because women aren't allowed in combat and therefore don't need to perform at the same physical level as men that they shouldn't be allowed in combat.

I think we have to annihilate the last vestiges of patriarchy, therefor women must be allowed in combat! :D

Especially in strictly patriarchial societies (i'm pointing at the Middle East), this would be a cure for society!

What about a woman serving in a battletank ?
If they're in a tank then the need to be able to perform simple maintnence and repair while in the field. Many of these tasks require quite a bit of brute stength.

As a Marine, women humped (carried) the same gear I did, the same distance I did, at the same pace I did. Are they able to match me in every way? No. Do they need to? No. They are able to carry the gear required and perform the actions required. It's just that simple.

Well in the canadian army they sure as hell COULD not!

Perhaps your thinking of the simple "hump" The basic physical standards you have to pass in order to get into the army. People who drive trucks do this...You are telling me that the more advanced hell week type tests could EVER be passed by a large amount of women? The physical tests that one must pass in order to become a combat soldier...
gimmie a break lol

Well in the canadian army they sure as hell COULD not!

Perhaps your thinking of the simple "hump" The basic physical standards you have to pass in order to get into the army. People who drive trucks do this...You are telling me that the more advanced hell week type tests could EVER be passed by a large amount of women? The physical tests that one must pass in order to become a combat soldier...
gimmie a break lol

All Marines are combat soldiers and well-known for being damn good ones. The women in the Marine Corps are required to go through the same combat training I was. I promise you I know quite a few women I know could twist you inside out, but the point is, they wouldn't have to. Bullets travel much faster than you can run and you're almost twice as big a target than they are.

A friend of mine is 6'4", did weight throwing for years, has broad shoulders and hard muscle packages. She is like a genuine valkyre and would certainly pass any physical test that an average man could pass.

All Marines are combat soldiers and well-known for being damn good ones. The women in the Marine Corps are required to go through the same combat training I was. I promise you I know quite a few women I know could twist you inside out, but the point is, they wouldn't have to. Bullets travel much faster than you can run and you're almost twice as big a target than they are.

ok your not answering the question right?

They did the basic phyical test in order to become "support" troops right? The same test mechanics, nurses, doctors etc have to take.

Well in the canadian army they sure as hell COULD not!

Perhaps your thinking of the simple "hump" The basic physical standards you have to pass in order to get into the army. People who drive trucks do this...You are telling me that the more advanced hell week type tests could EVER be passed by a large amount of women? The physical tests that one must pass in order to become a combat soldier...
gimmie a break lol

Oh, and let me add that most of the people first entering the services couldn't pass these tests at first. You were trained to pass those tests and when women are trained similarly, they perform similarly.

ok your not answering the question right?

They did the basic phyical test in order to become "support" troops right? The same test mechanics, nurses, doctors etc have to take.

Uh, yes, I did. Marines, no matter what else they are trained for, are all considered combat soldiers and are trained as such. It doesn't matter if you're a nurse or doctors or mechanic or anything else, we all go through a rigorous month combat training course after boot camp (three months) that includes what you referred to as hell week.

So congratulations, you just make the argument that because women aren't allowed in combat and therefore don't need to perform at the same physical level as men that they shouldn't be allowed in combat.
Ah, but physical ability does have to do with combat roles in the army. Did I say that those who could pass the same tests shouldn't be allowed in combat? No. The point was that many of the women currently in the Army and not the Marines can't pass the physical standards for men in the Army. Those standards are essentially there as a base minimum for basic army combat readiness. All women who could pass said standards could indeed take up combat roles. Those that cannot, should not be allowed to. End of discussion.

And whats the policy if a female soldier becomes pregnant and cannot fulfill her duties? Is there any policy? Just something I am wondering.

It wasn't me.

A friend of mine is 6'4", did weight throwing for years, has broad shoulders and hard muscle packages. She is like a genuine valkyre and would certainly pass any physical test that an average man could pass.


how man women are like that? 1 in 5000?

She sounds like the girl i went to the gym with, she was about as strong as me, but these two women are very very rare...

Ah, but physical ability does have to do with combat roles in the army. Did I say that those who could pass the same tests shouldn't be allowed in combat? No. The point was that many of the women currently in the Army and not the Marines can't pass the physical standards for men in the Army. Those standards are essentially there as a base minimum for basic army combat readiness. All women who could pass said standards could indeed take up combat roles. Those that cannot, should not be allowed to. End of discussion.

Ah, but you didn't address the fact that these women are not trained to pass those tests. If they were trained to do so they would. And you can choose to leave the discussion whenever you like, but you can't end the discussion.

Seriously, do you have any combat training whatsoever? In hand-to-hand I know I could beat you; I am well practiced in the martial arts, including judo and karate. Heh. You probably don't even know what judo is. :p


i was in the canadian reverses for a few years. And martial arts are very very poor defense. I know of black belts who get the crap beaten out of themselves in bar fights...

The best defence for a women in a fight with a man is to kick him in the balls and then run away.

Uh, yes, I did. Marines, no matter what else they are trained for, are all considered combat soldiers and are trained as such. It doesn't matter if you're a nurse or doctors or mechanic or anything else, we all go through a rigorous month combat training course after boot camp (three months) that includes what you referred to as hell week.

Thats bullshit. You have a basic physical standard test you must pass sure. But you then have to pass a tougher test or a pass a tougher standard in order to become a combat grunt or did you forget that?

i was in the canadian reverses for a few years. And martial arts are very very poor defense. I know of black belts who get the crap beaten out of themselves in bar fights...

The best defence for a women in a fight with a man is to kick him in the balls and then run away.
Bullshit. I have ALSO taken basic self-defense classes, and I know how to kick a guy's ass... but I will not divulge that information as it is meant to be known ONLY by women so if we are attacked sexually or otherwise, we can defend ourselves in ways men will not expect.

Ah, but you didn't address the fact that these women are not trained to pass those tests. If they were trained to do so they would. And you can choose to leave the discussion whenever you like, but you can't end the discussion.


i dont think a large percentage of women could pass the test even with massive training...

how many women are like that? 1 in 5000?
You seem to have a tendency to use this particular fallacy in your arguments, I've noticed. Arguing that since there are few of a particular sort of person, that they do not matter. The thing is, low numerical quantity=/=inconsequentiality, especially in arguments of this sort.

i dont think a large percentage of women could pass the test even with massive training...
But why don't you think that? All you have said so far is that you don't think that they can, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to. That sort of fulfils itself there...

To the gentleman who said that a woman couldn't put on plate and chain and pick up a mace - I beg to differ - I'm famale and have put on armor and picked up a bastard sword and gone out on to the field - and didn't do to shabbily - I'm in the SCA

I feel that women should be allowed in combat roles if they pass the same tests as men - many other posts have noted that there are many facets of modern warfare where women do better than men.

I very much agree on that men are more able to bulk muscle and out strength women in a vast majority of cases - but brute strenght is not the be all/end all of modern warfare.

I can out shoot I'd say 90% of the populace - I love guns and am at a range regularly. Out on the paintball filed I was the one that was sent out to wiggle down the ditch and scout - I'm limberer than most men, and move 'lighter' than they do.

Rape? - yeah the possibility is there and nothing is going to remove the potential - it happens to the civilian populace that lives in the war zone as well - and any woman going into a combat position needs to look at the fact they may have to deal with it. It also happens in civilian life - possibly even more frequently.

I can understand and appreciate you guys wanting to protect us from it - that says very good things about you ( at least to me it does ) but you can't protect us and keeping us from combat on the grounds 'that it might happen' well that make me feel like 'less', like 'weaker', like 'second class' - and thats a feeling that I don't like, -

Men and women each have strengths in different areas, as well as similar areas, we should rejoice in those differences and work together to bulwark the weaknesses and accent the strengths.

I'll stop rambling now...

I agree with you, women should not be in combat.
P.S. Streangth is not just in the mass but in the mind, If you think and also if you are fast you do not haveto be a bodybuilder to beat a man twice your mass. I know because I have seen it and done it in the past but only when there is no other option. I am not a big guy and not a fighter but I will fight if I am left with only that option. In the same way I think women can be very affective, the only reason I agree with you is because I would not want to see a women shot or blown up infront of me, just think it is worse on the mind. Don't know why so don't ask.

Ok here's my completely uncritizisable utterly perfect conclusion:

There is absolutely no reason to ban women from joining the army- the whole debate about women being weaker is nullified by the point already made that the majority of women who're not physically up to it wont try to join in the first place. To ensure freedom of opportunity women should be able to join the army only if they can match the standards of men (standards should then, not be lowered for women), and regardless of whether just one woman manages to pass or millions do is irrelevant, the system would be fair.

Now the one problem of having women in the army would be stuff like rape, but this kind of abuse would hardly be a new thing. At Deepcut (in the UK near where I live) two kids in the army 'killed themselves' even though there was overwhelming evidence that they'd been murdered. Not to mention the whole abusing Iraqi prisoners business.
Thus, it would seem if an effective solution can be found to abuse of men then it would apply to abuse of women, and if no solution can be found, then perhaps neither sex should be allowed to join the army and we leave it up to the dogs and dolphins.
On a side note: it is not unheard of for males in the army to undergo sexual abuse, there have been plenty of stories on the UK news in recent years.

Bullshit. I have ALSO taken basic self-defense classes, and I know how to kick a guy's ass... but I will not divulge that information as it is meant to be known ONLY by women so if we are attacked sexually or otherwise, we can defend ourselves in ways men will not expect.


you are a ninja, but seriously do you tell women your ninja ways to beat up guys?

If so that is extremely bad judgement. In order to be able to beat up the average guy and not be injured you would have to train for a loooong time. Any defence course will teach you to injure the attacker quickly and then back away quickly. This aint street fighter lol

You seem to have a tendency to use this particular fallacy in your arguments, I've noticed. Arguing that since there are few of a particular sort of person, that they do not matter. The thing is, low numerical quantity=/=inconsequentiality, especially in arguments of this sort.


Ummmm no it doesnt. WE make decisions based on percentages all the time. Would the costs associated with letting 1/500 or 1/5000 women into combat roles justify the extra "man" power we would get? Or perhaps we should just let the physical requirements slide in order to get equal amounts of women in combat roles?

IMO the number of women who could do the physical job that men do in combat would not be worth it to let them in...

Fact: Women are naturally not as agressive as men

I think females should be in the military, but a last resort when it comes to combat.

As a woman in the military, I'd just like to say that the generalizations in this thread are really annoying. Yes, many many women cannot compete with men if you're talking pound for pound. However, there are still many who can. I pride myself on adhering to male PT standards.

And since I know the question will come up, no I have not been in a combat position yet. However for the past 5 years I have worked as a Security officer and a bouncer/crowd control for a local bar, and am tougher than many of my male counterparts.

To be fair a woman can be in a combat zone if she chooses, can't understand why they would want to. Still I don't understand why men want to either :D

I think it is a hideous, barbaric and senseless thing for women to be in comabt roles.*




* I also think it is a hideous, barbaric and senseless thing for men to be in combat roles too.

Fact: Women are naturally not as agressive as men

. . .I take it you've never dealt with the "Does my dress make me look fat?" Kobyashi Maru scenario.

. . .I take it you've never dealt with the "Does my dress make me look fat?" Kobyashi Maru scenario.

I take it you have no understanding of statistics and that not all men have to be more aggressive than all women for the statement you replied to to be true.

I think its time to finish this thread off. Essentially, everyone seems to have the same ideas in this thread. That is that apart from a few crazy guys that dont want any women in the military, most people favor women being allowed in the military if they can pass the same tests as men. Anyone disagree?

Of course then we got bogged down with how agressive we think women are and which is the stonger sex. These things are both irrelevant though as they are generalisations and therefore do not apply to every single man or woman.

I've served in the Army for eight years, 6 of those as an officer. National Guard mind you. I not only passed the PT tests which were given to both genders equally, I over-maxed on the push ups and sit ups. Our commanding officers informed us that females 9 times out of 10 do much better with the sit ups than males. As for the run...I'm not a runner, however, the females were put through the same training as the males, it wasn't watered down, there were no 'handicaps' given because we were female.
We performed the same obstacle courses, the same drills, were taught to use the same weapons; where again, females have the advantage as they out-perform males in jobs requiring hand-eye coordination. I earned my Expert tag with a grenade, having maxed the course and the final in which we had to throw a grenade down an angled rocket tube from a distance of about 25'.

So yeah, guys might have the brute force, but as others have said here previously, females are much better snipers.

I served in the headquarters battery of a Field Artillery unit (1st Bn, 109th, look them up, they have a great history!) for 2 years before I earned my commission and had to transfer out because there was no spot available for a officer at the time. I not only enjoyed firing the howitzers, I was dang good at targeting.

So hey, I say if a female wants to be in a combat branch of any service, let her!

Thats bullshit. You have a basic physical standard test you must pass sure. But you then have to pass a tougher test or a pass a tougher standard in order to become a combat grunt or did you forget that?

You are clearly unfamiliar with the Marine Corps. There is no further physical standard to pass in order to become a combat grunt, only weapon specialization (machine gunner, etc).

i dont think a large percentage of women could pass the test even with massive training...

But women do pass the test all the time so your theory does not bear out in reality. And if you like to suggest that your basic grunt Canadian unit is better conditioned than you average Marine unit that theory also does not bear out in reality.

You also make that mistaken judgement that minimum skills only relate to the physical. The minimum skills required for combat are certain level of physical strength, a certain level of physical stamina, a minimum of shooting prowess and minimum of combat awareness. The only one where woman will be closer to the minimum than men is physical strength. Here's how groups tend to fall when trained and tested, women meet the minimum in strength but excel in stamina, markmanship and combat awareness. Men excel in strength and excel everywhere else.

And if you don't believe me on the stamina argument try a stamina test where strength isn't involved such as seeing who can stand on a small platform for the longest and the average woman will beat the average man every time.

When making the woman can't make it in combat argument, men tend to simplify the argument to physical strength because it's the only way the argument bears out at all.

As a woman in the military, I'd just like to say that the generalizations in this thread are really annoying. Yes, many many women cannot compete with men if you're talking pound for pound. However, there are still many who can. I pride myself on adhering to male PT standards.

And since I know the question will come up, no I have not been in a combat position yet. However for the past 5 years I have worked as a Security officer and a bouncer/crowd control for a local bar, and am tougher than many of my male counterparts.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

wow I have NEVER seen a decent female bouncer EVER. That is a joke right?
A female bouncer would get DESTORYED in bar fights lol

But women do pass the test all the time so your theory does not bear out in reality. And if you like to suggest that your basic grunt Canadian unit is better conditioned than you average Marine unit that theory also does not bear out in reality.

You also make that mistaken judgement that minimum skills only relate to the physical. The minimum skills required for combat are certain level of physical strength, a certain level of physical stamina, a minimum of shooting prowess and minimum of combat awareness. The only one where woman will be closer to the minimum than men is physical strength. Here's how groups tend to fall when trained and tested, women meet the minimum in strength but excel in stamina, markmanship and combat awareness. Men excel in strength and excel everywhere else.

And if you don't believe me on the stamina argument try a stamina test where strength isn't involved such as seeing who can stand on a small platform for the longest and the average woman will beat the average man every time.

When making the woman can't make it in combat argument, men tend to simplify the argument to physical strength because it's the only way the argument bears out at all.

ok your wrong but whatever. I know we have tons of females in combat roles in the marines right?

Granted i dont know the physical requirments of the US army but I know women cannot make it in the canadian army....

anyways got to go

Methinks Jaythewise has to assert his physical superiority over women... Funn that he chooses an internet forum to do it.

Seriously, I think women could do well in the army. Women tend to be better at endurane type activities, and can be trained to bulk up. I don't see why it should be a problem since people don't tend to fight with axes and swords these days...

What I don't get is why a woman (or anyone else) would choose to be in the army. Oh wait, they're poor and the army guarantees them employment and an education. Right.

Methinks Jaythewise has to assert his physical superiority over women... Funn that he chooses an internet forum to do it.

Seriously, I think women could do well in the army. Women tend to be better at endurane type activities, and can be trained to bulk up. I don't see why it should be a problem since people don't tend to fight with axes and swords these days...

What I don't get is why a woman (or anyone else) would choose to be in the army. Oh wait, they're poor and the army guarantees them employment and an education. Right.

And if you're in the U.S. army, they guarantee an over-extended stay in Iraq! That's gotta be fun.

Hell, like I always say, if women want equal rights, put them on the draft and give them the same chance to die just like the men. Hell and with today millitary were you rarely see hand to hand any more, women are just as good as men, as long as they shoot straight and hit their mark women in the millitary sounds like the way to go.

And while their at that get rid of that damn outdated fraternization law that prevents male soldiers from having relations with a female soldiers. Between you and me, there are some honeys in the army and I'm going in in the next two years so, yeaha!

Also they should get rid of those old Navy dress uniforms, man those are gay.

And if you're in the U.S. army, they guarantee an over-extended stay in Iraq! That's gotta be fun.
I watched a doco called "purple hearts" the other day. They interviewed servicemen who had been maimed in Iraq. What really disturbed me was that they all wanted to go back, "To blow up Eye-raqis, and level their country." WTF?

And one guy was against the war in the first place, but was happy to mindlessly follow orders. Fuck. Mindlessly following orders... No wonder society isn't changing for the better.

I watched a doco called "purple hearts" the other day. They interviewed servicemen who had been maimed in Iraq. What really disturbed me was that they all wanted to go back, "To blow up Eye-raqis, and level their country." WTF?

The mentality of most of these soldiers is less than spectacular. Notice that many of them aren't very intelligent. And what intelligent person would pronounce it "eye-racky"? None that I know.

And one guy was against the war in the first place, but was happy to mindlessly follow orders. Fuck. Mindlessly following orders... No wonder society isn't changing for the better.

Yeah, that's another thing that gets me. It shows just how spineless a good amount of these people are.

Sorta influenced by the stupid women need to be the kitchen crap thread.

Personally, i would be pissed if my wife got to stay home with the kids and cook. She's bringing home the bacon like me dammit. In any event I believe we have limited roles where women are not needed or able to do a certain type of job only a man could be able to do.

a) Combat ~ military. I personally have never met a women who is stronger than me. Even a women who was into wieght lifting could not out perform me at the gym. ( I did just barely beat her, but still she was a big chick)
So that means as a fairly big man not huge but pretty big I can kick the crap out of any women i have ever met. In a combat role how are you as a average women going to keep up to me a 200 pound guy?

b) ummmmmm thats it. lol

I dont see any other areas where women would not be able to do a good job as well as a man.

Your views....
This line of thinking seems so outmoded, I don't have anything to say. :rolleyes:

I am a wrestler. I went to a small (only about 6 to a weight class) tournament which had a girl at 119 pounds. She was ranked in the ENTIRE US for female wrestlers. She was very well built and probably dropped more weight than the guys she was wrestling. She finished 3rd. The match she lost was against a fish (someone with no idea what they're doing). He scored on her early and she couldn't do anything about it. He didn't even really man handle her; she just couldn't get any move on him. Just goes to show you, the best women are still only AS GOOD as the low tier men.

I am a wrestler. I went to a small (only about 6 to a weight class) tournament which had a girl at 119 pounds. She was ranked in the ENTIRE US for female wrestlers. She was very well built and probably dropped more weight than the guys she was wrestling. She finished 3rd. The match she lost was against a fish (someone with no idea what they're doing). He scored on her early and she couldn't do anything about it. He didn't even really man handle her; she just couldn't get any move on him. Just goes to show you, the best women are still only AS GOOD as the low tier men.

Strength-wise, of course. That's because Women lack the testosterone necessary to build large muscles, and they can't swivel their hips as much as Men, to allow for childbirth.

But saying that "the best women are still only AS GOOD as the low tier men" is ignorant to such an extreme that I simply refuse to comment any further.

Wow Jaythewise, you were in the Canadian reserves (the Canadian reserves!) so you OBVIOUSLY must know more than the Marine. I mean I once fired a hand gun at a paper target so I obviously can now consider myself a munitions expert.

Would you care to substantiate such sweeping statements as "I know women cannot make it in the canadian army" with some actual facts? Not that for a moment I would doubt the nigh on unquestionable knowledge of a man who was once in the Canadian reserves...

Wow Jaythewise, you were in the Canadian reserves (the Canadian reserves!) so you OBVIOUSLY must know more than the Marine. I mean I once fired a hand gun at a paper target so I obviously can now consider myself a munitions expert.

Would you care to substantiate such sweeping statements as "I know women cannot make it in the canadian army" with some actual facts? Not that for a moment I would doubt the nigh on unquestionable knowledge of a man who was once in the Canadian reserves...

Off topic can I ask if your British?

My way of thinking:
Take all gays and bisexuals on the front line (manditory)
lesser dislikes
Final Econimically useless
Men/women/children/certain babies that were trained to point and fire

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

wow I have NEVER seen a decent female bouncer EVER. That is a joke right?
A female bouncer would get DESTORYED in bar fights lol

Ha, perfect. Someone tells you they're a bouncer and you know more than them as well. Interesting. Well, I used to work as a bouncer with a woman that was 6'2" and weighed about 160. I promise she could make you leave the bar as easily an anyone else and if you were lucky you wouldn't be crying when you hit the pavement.

Strength-wise, of course. That's because Women lack the testosterone necessary to build large muscles, and they can't swivel their hips as much as Men, to allow for childbirth.

But saying that "the best women are still only AS GOOD as the low tier men" is ignorant to such an extreme that I simply refuse to comment any further.

Thank you. I agree.

Thank you. I agree.

I'm glad... I simply cannot stand people as ignorant as him.

If a woman can meet the same qualifications as a man (the same qualifications, not lowered standards to "give them a chance"), then there's no reason she shouldn't be allowed to take up a combat position. Hell, using a gun is a LOT easier than learning to use a spear, or a sword, or whatever else middle ages weapon, and there were a LOT of female warriors in that period (especially in Japan).

If a woman can meet the same qualifications as a man (the same qualifications, not lowered standards to "give them a chance"), then there's no reason she shouldn't be allowed to take up a combat position. Hell, using a gun is a LOT easier than learning to use a spear, or a sword, or whatever else middle ages weapon, and there were a LOT of female warriors in that period (especially in Japan).

I wouldn't tell Joan of Arc she couldn't fight
Nor would I mention it to Boudicia (SP?)
And least of all I wouldn't even try and tell Xena :D

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

wow I have NEVER seen a decent female bouncer EVER. That is a joke right?
A female bouncer would get DESTORYED in bar fights lol
Really now. Come out to my bar, buddy. See what happens when someone starts something, and see who gets destroyed.

ok your wrong but whatever. I know we have tons of females in combat roles in the marines right?

Unfortunately, that's the most intelligent argument you've made and you spelled "you're" incorrectly. You would have been great a few decades ago. You could just make unreasonable arguments that since women don't vote now they should never be allowed to vote. Brilliant.

You realize that there could be no women in combat roles in the US Army because of reasons unrelated to their physical strength. It could be things like having your infantry have to worry about not offending women in the middle of combat and how they are more vulnerable when they urinate on the field. You have to worry about a male medic coming to the rescue of an injured female when one of his male comrades is in more serious need of medical attention. You have to worry more about your male/female soldiers developing feelings for each other, as they could put the entire squad in danger trying to do something stupid as a result of said feelings. There is also a problem with pregnancy. Notice how none of these reasons had anything to do with how many push ups they could perform. There is more to sex/gender differences than phisical strength.

Ummmm no it doesnt. WE make decisions based on percentages all the time. Would the costs associated with letting 1/500 or 1/5000 women into combat roles justify the extra "man" power we would get? Or perhaps we should just let the physical requirements slide in order to get equal amounts of women in combat roles?
What "costs" are we talking about?

Sorta influenced by the stupid women need to be the kitchen crap thread.

Personally, i would be pissed if my wife got to stay home with the kids and cook. She's bringing home the bacon like me dammit. In any event I believe we have limited roles where women are not needed or able to do a certain type of job only a man could be able to do.

a) Combat ~ military. I personally have never met a women who is stronger than me. Even a women who was into wieght lifting could not out perform me at the gym. ( I did just barely beat her, but still she was a big chick)
So that means as a fairly big man not huge but pretty big I can kick the crap out of any women i have ever met. In a combat role how are you as a average women going to keep up to me a 200 pound guy?

b) ummmmmm thats it. lol

I dont see any other areas where women would not be able to do a good job as well as a man.

Your views....

To be fair irregardless of your strength I know a few women sparing partners that would send ya to the hospital in little pieces if ya tried to beat them up :p

I don't know how it is today, but in 1992, the unit I was assigned to was scheduled to rotate to Saudi Arabia (not a nice place for American Soldiers at the time). We had 20 Female soldiers in Bravo Battery alone. (ADA unit, Patriot, easy duty.)

As the deployment approached, 18 got pregnant.

There was no NJP or other official actions taken against eighteen soldiers who decided to get pregnant, rather than spend six months in Saudi Arabia.

We deployed understrength, and several soldiers had to 'emergency cross train' to fill the holes.

Funny thing, of the 15 that didn't get out on a medical, all fifteen were promoted at the same rate as the troops that didn't get knocked up to get out of going.

Put it this way, unless it's rape, it takes two to make a baby, and both have to be willing. Pregnancy is nine months of light duty with maternal leave.

Break your arm skiiing, you get NJP for damaging government property and being unsuitable for deployment, and that only lasts three months (the injury).

Now, imagine you're in an infantry unit with 20 females, and you get orders to go to Iraq. Eighteen get pregnant. How many line grunts is that, and how much effort does it take to fill those gaps in your line-gaps you weren't training to have during collective training, NTC, or JRTC- I'm talking Key Players here.

Unlike the non-combat MOS's, Infantry and other combat-arms have to rely a lot more on being able to "read each other", like a really tuned sports team (Analogy for the non-military). If you go to the big game minus a quarterback, a lineman, and both your wide-recievers, you're not going to win, you're going to be demolished.

Now, change that to a game where deadly force is being used...

I got out in '93, but this experience illustrated for me what Might happen, and what likely eventually will happen unless controls are instituted to prevent it.

That's the first item that might be used to support Jaythewise.

The second item is a piece of research that was big news a couple years ago about how men and women solve problems. Women use both hemispheres in situations where men only use the left. To a certain extent, this is a decided advantage, right? wrong.
When people are shooting at you, overthinking or second-guessing can be fatal, as can applying emotive states to a purely logical problem, and the damage from what you're doing (killing people) is more likely to impact people that are statistically more reliant on emotion than the average grunt.
There's also training someone to kill on command.
It takes a LOT to train a male to do this-the natural instinct goes against it.
It takes MORE to train a female, because they think more deeply into things. This was noted both by the Israelis in 1967, and the Russians in 1944.
The ones that WILL do it, are in the minority, and usually develop more types, varieties, and styles of mental illness later than men.

In other terms, women have a harder time "Turning it off" once it gets going, they also have more significant guilt issues after the fact.

This isn't such a big deal in defensive actions, but playing offense can result in deeper, more lasting, and more destructive emotional trauma in females than in males, who are used to 'not thinking about it', and may be evolutionarily adapted to not thinking about it.

This is, of course, Hypothesis, and may not be borne out in fact.

Third support that might be used:

How many babies can a man have?
Zero. With women, it's mainly a one-for-one pregnancy to baby ratio. one man is capable of impregnating dozens of women. One woman is unlikely to impregnate dozens of men without massive alterations to human biology.
In a survival situation, Males are... Expendable.
this makes the loss of men in combat less of a blow to a nation's future, than the loss of lots of women in combat. Men can be used up, and you likely will still have a next-generation.
In raw attrition terms, Women who can pass combat Infantry courses are better sources of raw DNA for future combat soldiers than those who are unable to pass the same course. Taking the long view, eliminating that DNA from the reproductive pool may not be entirely desirable in light of the fact that so far, nobody has invented a means to create a peace that lasts more than a short time.

Of course, all of these can be argued either way-and should be. This isn't a simple matter, because who is allowed to go into combat, is being allowed to die for reasons that may not be clear cut and understandable.

All of these are valid points, but I dont feel women should be in combat roles. I think combat and killing should be done by men, until such time as there is no choice.

o... thanks for clarifying that.. i thought you were being something other then blatently sexist and might have had valid points :rolleyes:

Women should be away from general direct combat roles on the ground inthe sky is fine and on the waves but not infantry sure Artillary or support units but not front of the line grunts.

Women should be away from general direct combat roles on the ground inthe sky is fine and on the waves but not infantry sure Artillary or support units but not front of the line grunts.

Well, I agree somewhat, but I'm more worried about you. Looks like you took one too many speed pills...

All of these are valid points, but I dont feel women should be in combat roles. I think combat and killing should be done by men, until such time as there is no choice.

I feel that nobody should be in combat roles and do killing, until such time as there is no choice. If it is a time of no choice, the question of the killers sex tends to become irrelevant compared to how capable a person is of killing somebody else, which is a talent that members of both sexes excel in, and other members of both sexes really suck in.

If women want equality in this world, as they are so quick to point out the inequalities, then let them prove themselves in all areas.
I don't believe men are "above" women and I don't think women are "below" men. However, there are distinct differences in men and women that affect their performance in most areas.
In short, men are better at some things and women are better at others. The problem is that this country has become so "politically correct" that we are chastised for believing this way.

Equal? Pull your boot straps up and start marching! Oh, and don't expect someone else to carry your 100 pound duffle bag.

I feel that nobody should be in combat roles and do killing, until such time as there is no choice. If it is a time of no choice, the question of the killers sex tends to become irrelevant compared to how capable a person is of killing somebody else, which is a talent that members of both sexes excel in, and other members of both sexes really suck in.

There is far more to be considered than just whether or not they can kill. Women can easily be nuclear techs on a Submarine. There is a reason why Women are only allowed on the Aircraft carriers and men who opt to be nuclear techs have to agree to possible submarine duty in advance.

Sorta influenced by the stupid women need to be the kitchen crap thread.

Personally, i would be pissed if my wife got to stay home with the kids and cook. She's bringing home the bacon like me dammit. In any event I believe we have limited roles where women are not needed or able to do a certain type of job only a man could be able to do.

a) Combat ~ military. I personally have never met a women who is stronger than me. Even a women who was into wieght lifting could not out perform me at the gym. ( I did just barely beat her, but still she was a big chick)
So that means as a fairly big man not huge but pretty big I can kick the crap out of any women i have ever met. In a combat role how are you as a average women going to keep up to me a 200 pound guy?

b) ummmmmm thats it. lol

I dont see any other areas where women would not be able to do a good job as well as a man.

Your views....
While I agree men and women should be treated equally in the workplace, sociologically-speaking, it's beneficial to children and society in general, to have a family-unit, with one breadwinner and one homemaker. Because, especially when they're young, it's important that parents speak to their children. Having one parent stay home ensures that.

I'm not saying it's impossible for children to be raised with two working parents, but a great deal of parents work constantly, and let television babysit their children. And so, we end up with Columbine and Red Lake.

I was in the Army (in the infantry as an enlisted man) for some time. I've seen many women who can pass the same physical courses as the men (airborne school, air assault school), and as far as I'm concerned, if they can pass the training and do the job, they should be allowed to serve in whatever capacity they choose (including combat as an infantryman).

Tests have shown, for instance, that women crewing an artillery piece have the same rate of fire as artillery crewed by men. That's lugging around huge shells. If they can lift them and move them and fire them at the required rate, I don't see the problem.

Women have done well in modern combat historically - the Soviet Union in WW II is notable.

There are plenty of men who fail airborne school or air assault school because they can't keep up physically. I've seen plenty of women pass.

Men who are captured get raped and killed, too. So I don't buy that argument, either.

Additionally, in modern warfare, there isn't a "rear area". Whether you're doing maneuver warfare and driving deep behind enemy lines with your forces and supply train, or fighting an insurgency, even the cooks and clerks are on the "front lines". There hasn't really been a FEBA (forward edge of battle area) that was solidly defined since WW I.

Kick 'em in the nuts. That'll fix 'em.

Women are tough. Gender biases aside, there are sissy women who's biggest worry is breaking a nail and having a hair out of place. But, women who enter the military, probably are there for a few reasons, one of which is to kick some serious ass. Plus, consider the weight of the idea that one of their beloeved is threatened. Women CAN be pretty scary.
Har har... you got my number. Nah...

As a woman in the military, I'd just like to say that the generalizations in this thread are really annoying. Yes, many many women cannot compete with men if you're talking pound for pound. However, there are still many who can. I pride myself on adhering to male PT standards.

And since I know the question will come up, no I have not been in a combat position yet. However for the past 5 years I have worked as a Security officer and a bouncer/crowd control for a local bar, and am tougher than many of my male counterparts.


I salute you and you have my respect. You dont have an argument from me on a generalization of women's abilities. There are many women who can and do pass the qualifications to be a soldier and many men that cant and dont.
I just give my opinion that women shouldnt be in combat situations. Most men dont want to see it-Men want to protect women, they dont want to see them fighting and killing-or being wounded and killed. it just goes against my nature is all I am saying. And I think that may be why many people would be against it. I am not speculating on a woman's abilities, strength, stamina or agression- we all know there are females that can and do meet and exceed whats required.

If women want equality in this world, as they are so quick to point out the inequalities, then let them prove themselves in all areas.
I don't believe men are "above" women and I don't think women are "below" men. However, there are distinct differences in men and women that affect their performance in most areas.
In short, men are better at some things and women are better at others. The problem is that this country has become so "politically correct" that we are chastised for believing this way.

Equal? Pull your boot straps up and start marching! Oh, and don't expect someone else to carry your 100 pound duffle bag.

A hundred pounds, huh? Ha, that's great. I'd like to see most of the men in almost any military group in the world carry a 100 pound duffle bag for an extended period of time. There are individuals who are the exception, such as myself (I used to carry three backpacks in every hump, my own on my back, one on my front from the first guy who fell out and a second in my hand, my rifle was in my other).

I salute you and you have my respect. You dont have an argument from me on a generalization of women's abilities. There are many women who can and do pass the qualifications to be a soldier and many men that cant and dont.
I just give my opinion that women shouldnt be in combat situations. Most men dont want to see it-Men want to protect women, they dont want to see them fighting and killing-or being wounded and killed. it just goes against my nature is all I am saying. And I think that may be why many people would be against it. I am not speculating on a woman's abilities, strength, stamina or agression- we all know there are females that can and do meet and exceed whats required.

Men didn't want to see women in the workplace. Men didn't want to see women voting. Hell, in fact, many women didn't either. My experience, people fear change. You change and then people get used to it. I can't support arguments for protecting people's incorrect and archiac views or fears.

I completely agree with the rest of what you said.

Edit: I assume you mean they don't want to see women injured even moreso than they don't want to see men injured.

A hundred pounds, huh? Ha, that's great. I'd like to see most of the men in almost any military group in the world carry a 100 pound duffle bag for an extended period of time. There are individuals who are the exception, such as myself (I used to carry three backpacks in every hump, my own on my back, one on my front from the first guy who fell out and a second in my hand, my rifle was in my other).

I'm 5' 10", and weight 175 pounds. I'm in pretty good shape for 44 years old. When I was 27 and in the infantry, I regularly carried over 125 pounds for 12 miles or more at 4 miles per hour. We weighed our gear, and it came out to an average of 128 pounds per soldier. I can still hump that much - I carry most of the gear when my family goes backpacking.

We rarely had anyone fall out in our unit. If they did, it was because they weren't drinking enough water on a hot day.

*snip*

Hon, I'm a damn good shot. And I have no doubt Occidio Multus could tear your spinal cord out if she so chose. Women have fought in combat situations for thousands of years in various cultures. The kind of women who WANT to join an army aren't your shrinking violets. They can kill just as well as anyone else.

Not that I think anyone should be killing other humans :(

I'm 5' 10", and weight 175 pounds. I'm in pretty good shape for 44 years old. When I was 27 and in the infantry, I regularly carried over 125 pounds for 12 miles or more at 4 miles per hour. We weighed our gear, and it came out to an average of 128 pounds per soldier. I can still hump that much - I carry most of the gear when my family goes backpacking.

We rarely had anyone fall out in our unit. If they did, it was because they weren't drinking enough water on a hot day.

I can't speak to seventeen years ago, but I can speak to ten years ago and I know for a fact that at that time the average pack for an infantryman weighed closer to half that weight. I suppose if you include the ammo belts and the rifle you might get a little closer to a hundred pounds, but then you are back to talking about the same weight that all the women were carrying as well. I guess I was just looking specifically at the pack as that was what was mentioned.

Our unit was understaffed and not being applied so we ended up training with an infantry unit in IL at an army base, and maybe yours was the exception because I would say this unit had a better than ten percent fallout rate at the pace we held. My unit was exceptional, but most groups I humped with had around a five percent fallout rate and that held even in boot camp where the men were considerably younger and spent a considerably greater amount of time training.

Edit: I keep forgetting it's been so long. I entered boot camp thirteen years ago, I was seventeen.

Hon, I'm a damn good shot. And I have no doubt Occidio Multus could tear your spinal cord out if she so chose. Women have fought in combat situations for thousands of years in various cultures. The kind of women who WANT to join an army aren't your shrinking violets. They can kill just as well as anyone else.

Not that I think anyone should be killing other humans :(

I was wondering when you were going to show up. Can you believe some of these arguments?

what does weight have to do with fighting ability?

it doesnt take that much strength to shoot people.

besides that, i weigh 140 and given 8 years of parkour and martial i can kick just about anyone's ass.

and ignoring all of that, 1 week out of the month a woman will be a killing machine.

I can't speak to seventeen years ago, but I can speak to ten years ago and I know for a fact that at that time the average pack for an infantryman weighed closer to half that weight. I suppose if you include the ammo belts and the rifle you might get a little closer to a hundred pounds, but then you are back to talking about the same weight that all the women were carrying as well. I guess I was just looking specifically at the pack as that was what was mentioned.


2/502nd Infantry, 101st Airborne. Try being a Dragon or Javelin missile gunner.

We carried about 600 rounds of 5.56, plus a extra ammo for the SAW, plus a belt each for the 240, AT-4 round (usually every other man), and if you were a missile gunner it got a lot heavier - the gunner carried the launcher and a ready round, and the assistant gunner carried the reload round.

Add the body armor and your other gear, and your rifle, and it gets very heavy very fast.

Not saying that women can't do it. Women who can carry the weight have all my support. Because women can fight and women can shoot.

Hon, I'm a damn good shot. And I have no doubt Occidio Multus could tear your spinal cord out if she so chose. Women have fought in combat situations for thousands of years in various cultures. The kind of women who WANT to join an army aren't your shrinking violets. They can kill just as well as anyone else.

Not that I think anyone should be killing other humans :(
I know a few sparing partners that could put him in the floor :) hell they do that to me regularly and I know whats comin at me :p

I know a few sparing partners that could put him in the floor :) hell they do that to me regularly and I know whats comin at me :p

I was in combat, and it never went hand to hand. In fact, there isn't any reason to have a knife, or a bayonet, either, as far as I'm concerned.

If you can call for fire, and you can shoot a rifle, AT-4 rocket, any of the machineguns, or a Javelin missile launcher, that's all you need to know.

2/502nd Infantry, 101st Airborne. Try being a Dragon or Javelin missile gunner.

We carried about 600 rounds of 5.56, plus a extra ammo for the SAW, plus a belt each for the 240, AT-4 round (usually every other man), and if you were a missile gunner it got a lot heavier - the gunner carried the launcher and a ready round, and the assistant gunner carried the reload round.

Add the body armor and your other gear, and your rifle, and it gets very heavy very fast.

Not saying that women can't do it. Women who can carry the weight have all my support. Because women can fight and women can shoot.

Actually, I didn't count in body armor. It's been a while. You're right it gets up there. I was limiting it to the duffle bag, pack as that was what you referenced in the first post. It just seemed a little exaggerated. I stand corrected.

Regardless, I have seen plenty of women that have humped all the same gear as an infantryman as it's required in the Marine Corps.

I was in combat, and it never went hand to hand. In fact, there isn't any reason to have a knife, or a bayonet, either, as far as I'm concerned.

If you can call for fire, and you can shoot a rifle, AT-4 rocket, any of the machineguns, or a Javelin missile launcher, that's all you need to know.
I understand that but his original atitude reflected more personal contact and strength as an asset :) I will leave it to you to argue the true combat part

I know hand to hand ...:) but not a combat vet :p so I tend to argue what I know

Actually, I didn't count in body armor. It's been a while. You're right it gets up there. I was limiting it to the duffle bag, pack as that was what you referenced in the first post. It just seemed a little exaggerated. I stand corrected.

Regardless, I have seen plenty of women that have humped all the same gear as an infantryman as it's required in the Marine Corps.

I've seen plenty of women who can do it.
I've seen some men who can't.

If you can hump the gear, and shoot the weapons, as far as I'm concerned, you can be a soldier.

I can't hold a gun... and I don't think I could bring myself to shoot one either.

I can't hold a gun... and I don't think I could bring myself to shoot one either.

You can't lift 3.5 kilos with two hands?

You can't lift 3.5 kilos with two hands?
Probably ment moral reasons ...
Even if I could not shoot someone a gun is just a tool ... dont mind holding it (not saying I could not ... just IF I could not)

Probably ment moral reasons ...
Even if I could not shoot someone a gun is just a tool ... dont mind holding it (not saying I could not ... just IF I could not)
Firearms are completely dependent on their holders for their morality.

Firearms are completely dependent on their holders for their morality.
Exactly ... thats why I said it was a tool (but you CAN make a moral judgement that affects your ability to handel them so can still be for "moral" issues)

The thought that I would be holding a weapon designed to kill would make me sick. I have a strange opinion of guns. I'm anti-gun and I hate gun violence but I would find it safer to be close to someone that had a gun (a friend of course).

Men didn't want to see women in the workplace. Men didn't want to see women voting. Hell, in fact, many women didn't either. My experience, people fear change. You change and then people get used to it. I can't support arguments for protecting people's incorrect and archiac views or fears.

I completely agree with the rest of what you said.

Edit: I assume you mean they don't want to see women injured even moreso than they don't want to see men injured.


Its not the change in this case I fear. Women, in my eyes, are the mothers and sisters and daughters-part of what makes this country worth fighting for. my reasons for not wanting women to fight arent fair or based on ability. Maybe its more an emotional opinion. I like to think we will never be back against the wall where we will need women in combat. I dont want to see women injured as a result of combat, nor do I want women to have to deal with killing on combat. I have no problem with women's rights-women in the work places-I'm all for equality and fair treatment.

Its not the change in this case I fear. Women, in my eyes, are the mothers and sisters and daughters-part of what makes this country worth fighting for. my reasons for not wanting women to fight arent fair or based on ability. Maybe its more an emotional opinion. I like to think we will never be back against the wall where we will need women in combat. I dont want to see women injured as a result of combat, nor do I want women to have to deal with killing on combat. I have no problem with women's rights-women in the work places-I'm all for equality and fair treatment.
Equal benifts should mean equal responsibility. It is their job just like ours to protect the place that gives them the benifits.

All human life is sacred to me I dont want to have anyone killed male or female ... to me they are both as bad

The thought that I would be holding a weapon designed to kill would make me sick. I have a strange opinion of guns. I'm anti-gun and I hate gun violence but I would find it safer to be close to someone that had a gun (a friend of course).
Does holding a bow make you sick? also designed to kill or is it just guns?

Does holding a bow make you sick? also designed to kill or is it just guns?

A gun can be used for more than just killing. And just because you kill, does not mean you are doing a bad thing.

If you saw that child molester in Florida about to kill that little girl, and you had a gun in your hand, and he didn't stop when you called out to him to stop, and you killed him with the gun -

you would not be doing a bad thing.

Moral context is everything.

Does holding a bow make you sick? also designed to kill or is it just guns?
Sure. I've never held one so I don't know.

A gun can be used for more than just killing. And just because you kill, does not mean you are doing a bad thing.

If you saw that child molester in Florida about to kill that little girl, and you had a gun in your hand, and he didn't stop when you called out to him to stop, and you killed him with the gun -

you would not be doing a bad thing.

Moral context is everything.
If I did kill him then I'm sure the experience would keep haunting me aftwards.

Actually women did serve in the military as snipers in Russia.

If I did kill him then I'm sure the experience would keep haunting me aftwards.
Not me.
" We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. "

Not me.
" We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. "
I sleep in my safe bed because of the CRIP patrol between the hours of 12AM - 7AM.

As far as I know about combat, is not only physical force that comes into account in a combat. A man can weight a lot and bi really muscled and still have his ass kicked by, for example, a woman who is a master at some kind of martial art.

And, besides, in war there must be the "brains" of strategy...you can have brilliant men and women planning strategy.

I was wondering when you were going to show up. Can you believe some of these arguments?
Yes, yes I can. Do I buy them? No.

Considering that women are often made the victims of violence during conflict, being targeted for rape and other acts (as civilians), wouldn't you think it would be a good idea to have more women trained to resist violence? More women in the army, to perhaps STOP rapes from happening? (though we've seen that women can be just as sadistic...still, the hope would be that having women in the ranks would make men think twice before raping civilians....)

well one reason for this, is when captured, women are tortured much worse them men are


other than that, if a women wants tio fight let her.


Unlkess of cpurse the draft cpmes. For selfish reasons i never want them to include women in the draft

Its not the change in this case I fear. Women, in my eyes, are the mothers and sisters and daughters-part of what makes this country worth fighting for. my reasons for not wanting women to fight arent fair or based on ability. Maybe its more an emotional opinion. I like to think we will never be back against the wall where we will need women in combat. I dont want to see women injured as a result of combat, nor do I want women to have to deal with killing on combat. I have no problem with women's rights-women in the work places-I'm all for equality and fair treatment.

So it is the change you fear. Perhaps you should reread what you wrote. Also, you're not for equality if you think women should not be allowed to take any role a man can provided they can perform at the minimum required level. I'm not saying your fears and beliefs aren't justified but they are fears and you do not advocate equality.

well one reason for this, is when captured, women are tortured much worse them men are


other than that, if a women wants tio fight let her.


Unlkess of cpurse the draft cpmes. For selfish reasons i never want them to include women in the draft

Well...

The forms of torture are different between men and women...

That's as far as I'm going to go.

i wish noone had to go into combat. but the fact is that the tests of ability are there to show that you can do the job. and whatever your gender, if you pass you pass, and you get the job.

by the way men can be sexually abused by other men, and by women. It's not just women who need to fear this.

and on the pregnancy thing, in this country the law says that you cannot discriminate unfairly on the basis of gender. which means you can't make a woman take a paycut if she gets pregnant. but neither can you put her or the child in danger for the duration of the pregnancy. this is why airhostesses get put on ground duty, on airhostess pay, when they're pregnant. (airhostesses get a lot more money than ground staff)

Well, I agree somewhat, but I'm more worried about you. Looks like you took one too many speed pills...
WTF???
You wernt complaining last night! :p :(

This post's main purpose is to get me to 400.

That being said....
I think its not particularly nessesary for woment to be in combat roles, but if they can pass all the physical training, then why not?

As an example, in the Israeli Army, women are in elite combat training roles, but not in combat itself. The fact is, the Israeli army ahs more soldiers than it knows what to do with, and additional combat soldiers (or any soldiers) are the last thing that's needed, male or female. Lots of girls end up in boring make-work jobs, or never get to actually use the training they recieve in their army career....its quite a waste.

lets face it guys who would want to face a woman with an AK and PMT? ;)

During the Second World War the USSR had women in front line roles, including as tank commanders. Many societies throughout history have allowed women to fight alongside men.

Thats bullshit. You have a basic physical standard test you must pass sure. But you then have to pass a tougher test or a pass a tougher standard in order to become a combat grunt or did you forget that?

He didn't forget anything. All United States Marines must go through Basic Infantry Training. After Basic Infantry Training once is fully qualified for infantry duty.

He didn't forget anything. All United States Marines must go through Basic Infantry Training. After Basic Infantry Training once is fully qualified for infantry duty.

Thank you. I knew someone else must be familiar with the concept.