NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050520/pl_usatoday/panelsdecisionreheatswomenincombatdebate

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050519/pl_nm/arms_congress_dc_9

I am curious here on what NSers feel the role of women in the military should be. Currently there is debate about wether women belong in hazardous combat-support roles. They currently are not allwed in direct combat roles.

What do you feel? (poll coming)

"cough" they should be dancing (nakedish) on a stage to boost morale ;)

If a woman is suitable for combat, it's stupid to keep her out due to some stereotype of 'all women are weak' or something of the like. And I'm quite positive there are women out there that can pass the same tests that the men do.

I thinkt he issue is not whether women are capable or not of serving in combat, its more the issue of women being hurt while in combat. It could be that we are unused to seeing women fighting and dying alongside men. Besides, if women are captured, they are likely to be raped and or sexually harrassed.

On the other hand, many nations have successfully employed women soldiers. Russia had women fighting in World War II. The Chinese Communists had all-women units (though one of these units was captured by Muslim warlords in western China and the women sold into slavery). A major concern for the Chinese was the women getting pregnant; many of them were wives, and they were forced to abandon their babies (particularly on the Long March).

If a woman is suitable for combat, it's stupid to keep her out due to some stereotype of 'all women are weak' or something of the like. And I'm quite positive there are women out there that can pass the same tests that the men do.
Exactly, if a woman mets the requirments, and she wishes to join a branch of the military, send her to fight. She'll do just as well.

Allow me the luxury of making a very poor argument. The type of which I'd never normally post. Women should be the primary soldiers in combat. Why? Men have an urge to go after glory. It's evident in virtually every civilisation before us, why would it go away? Take, for example, the Gauls of the ancient world. Trained to seek glory from themselves. Rash, undisciplined, more difficult to mesh to a cohesive fighting force because they just plain wanted to kill the enemy in a full frontal charge. These days with formal army training, we can suppress that urge. But how much longer does it take? How much easier would it be for a woman to learn how to work as part of a cohesive whole? Not very long. Again, as an example, I show the lionness of the pride. Works collectively with the other lionness to bring back the hunt whilst the individualistic male goes it alone. Sure he might be physically stronger. But on his own, he could be taken to pieces in moments by the combined might of the lioness. With modern weaponry, brute strength is not as necessary as it used to be. One might counter argue pregnancy. Not really a problem. Contraception is easily available and cheap to produce. In a female dominated army, pregnancy would be quite rare, also. Hygeine also is a common counter-argument, due to the female menstrual cycle. There are pills nowadays that can greatly slow down the menstrual cycle allowing women to stay in the field as long as men. Face it. Women are better suited to running todays army. There you go. Ignore it as you please. It amused me to write. :D


To go onto my somewhat shorter one. If a women can meet the standards set, why not? There's no logical reason that cannot be overcome with the correct training why a woman cannot serve just as capably on the front lines. As usual, I make my reference to Russian female snipers, tank crews, and pilots all serving with distinction in the second world war.

The only reason not to include women in combat is if it reduces effectiveness.

"The only reliable record of women in combat is provided by Israel, a nation whose policy is widely misunderstood. The popular conception is that Israeli women fight alongside men as equals. The truth is that although Israel drafts both women and men for military service, Israel has excluded women from combat units since 1950.

To be sure, female soldiers fought alongside male colleagues in Israel's War of Liberation, which ended in 1948. Because of the problems that this created, Israeli women never again were sent into battle. Explains military historian Edward N. Luttwak of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has written a book about the Israeli military: "Men moved to protect the women members of the unit instead of carrying out the mission of the unit." (Telephone interview, June 10, 1991.) Luttwak adds that women are integrated into the Israeli military at many levels, and conduct most of the training. Women also serve in the Mossad, Israel's elite counter-terrorist force. But women are excluded, Luttwak notes, from infantry and other combat positions based on "the pragmatic experience of 40 years." (Ibid.)

The Israelis also bar women from combat for cultural reasons. After the War of Liberation, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said that placing women in combat violated the Jewish concept of womanhood and women's status as mothers. (Interview with senior Israeli military official, June 12, 1991, Washington, D.C.) At a Washington briefing this month, a senior Israeli military official said that even tentative experiments with women serving aboard missile-defense boats had failed miserably. Furthermore, he said, because of its cultural heritage, Israel "is not ready to pay the price of a woman being held hostage, a woman returning crippled." (Ibid.)

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cwMahFX4i1gJ:www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/BG836.cfm+israeli+miltary+women+combat&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I believe that women should be allowed to serve in the military as equals to men. Anything less is gender discrimination.

Your choices aren't very good.

I think women should be allowed in the military, but women can have some complications when it comes to sitting in a foxhole for days. You can't deny it.

Women are perfectly good soldiers, but I think they should be kept as support, security, etc. Stuff like that.

To go onto my somewhat shorter one. If a women can meet the standards set, why not? There's no logical reason that cannot be overcome with the correct training why a woman cannot serve just as capably on the front lines. As usual, I make my reference to Russian female snipers, tank crews, and pilots all serving with distinction in the second world war.[/QUOTE]


Your references to the capability of women are ridiculed to a great degree by Martin van Creveld who looked at those historical examples and greatly rubbished them. If I remember he wrote something along the lines that they were an unmitigated disaster for the IDF.

I'm all for women going out there and getting stuck in, allows me the chance to jump across the border to the Republic if there is ever going to be another conventional clash of armies, (I doubt it).

But as of women not hitting the standard, that could be, as you say, something to be looked at but a recent(ish) British MOD report (if I remember correctly) suggested the time needed for such training wasn't viable. However I think the first British female Marine might be passing out soon, although she still won't be allowed into combat, which is unfair.

If the issue is women in combat, not women in the military, then we need a debate on some of these points:

"Would combat roles for women be optional or assigned? If optional, would combat assignments for men also be optional?

Is there an objective monitoring process to determine whether allowing women in combat would aid or hinder military effectiveness?

If all laws and regulations against women in combat are repealed, will there be any reason for female soldiers to believe that they will not be subject to combat roles in any theater on an equal basis with men?

Since dual standards for physical regimens are in effect at the service academies, will males and females be subject to dual standards in all the services?

Of those single parents in Operation Desert Shield/Storm who had custody of their children, how many were mothers with young children?

Did child care problems, including reassignment requests, affect morale or slow the deployment of troops?

Did any problems result from quartering male and female troops in proximity with little personal privacy?

How many complaints have been registered concerning sexual harassment, fraternization, assault or rape?

How do enlistment and re-enlistment rates for men and women compare with those before Operation Desert Storm?

How would the Schroeder Amendment affect the National Guard and reserves of the Air Force, Navy, Marines and Army?

Answers to these and other serious questions are essential before the nation decides whether to send women into combat. This is not an urgent matter requiring a quick decision. There is no emergency. On this issue, therefore, America should not rush to judgment."

Your choices aren't very good.

I think women should be allowed in the military, but women can have some complications when it comes to sitting in a foxhole for days. You can't deny it.

Women are perfectly good soldiers, but I think they should be kept as support, security, etc. Stuff like that.

What choices would you prefer? I tried to keep them all close to vanilla without over-doing the options.

Women should be accepted into the military, but not into extensive combat.

I think that if women want to be in a combat unit and can handle the same physical, mental and emotional demands as men, they should be allowed to. The current furor over this issue is, IMHO, a tempest in a teapot. Either return the military to its all-male status or open all jobs up to women who can gualify, no more of these half-way measures which send women home in bodybags anyway! [ cusses under his breath ]

Women should be allowed in combat, thought not in infantry/marines/paratroopers, and possibly not in navy. They should be in the airforce, artillery and tanks. Infantry and related positions require a greater endurance in most situations, planes, helicopters, artillery and tanks require less and are actually improved by people of lesser height and physical mass.

Women should be allowed in combat, thought not in infantry/marines/paratroopers, and possibly not in navy. They should be in the airforce, artillery and tanks. Infantry and related positions require a greater endurance in most situations, planes, helicopters, artillery and tanks require less and are actually improved by people of lesser height and physical mass.
What if they can prove that they are physically able?

The above notwithstanding, the women of Raven 42 kicked ass. Makes me proud.

"Those seven Americans (with the three wounded) killed in total 24 heavily armed enemy, wounded 6 (two later died), and captured one unwounded, who feigned injury to escape the fight. They seized 22 AK-47s, 6x RPG launchers w/ 16 rockets, 13x RPK machineguns, 3x PKM machineguns, 40 hand grenades, 123 fully loaded 30-rd AK magazines, 52 empty mags, and 10 belts of 2500 rds of PK ammo....

Of the 7 members of Raven 42 who walked away, two are Caucasian Women, the rest men-one is Mexican-American, the medic is African-American, and the other two are Caucasian-the great American melting pot."

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006564.php

The above notwithstanding, the women of Raven 42 kicked ass. Makes me proud.

"Those seven Americans (with the three wounded) killed in total 24 heavily armed enemy, wounded 6 (two later died), and captured one unwounded, who feigned injury to escape the fight. They seized 22 AK-47s, 6x RPG launchers w/ 16 rockets, 13x RPK machineguns, 3x PKM machineguns, 40 hand grenades, 123 fully loaded 30-rd AK magazines, 52 empty mags, and 10 belts of 2500 rds of PK ammo....

Of the 7 members of Raven 42 who walked away, two are Caucasian Women, the rest men-one is Mexican-American, the medic is African-American, and the other two are Caucasian-the great American melting pot."

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006564.php
As I've been at pains to point out before, I have known a few women who could give me ( when I was in my fighting prime! ) a real run for the money. One of them I truly would hate to run into in a dark alleyway one night! :D

I don't see why not, this is not the middle ages where physical strenght was all. As long as the woman in question meets the requirements, sure.

The arguments I have heard against having women on the front lines, mainly from ex or reservist millitary friends, seem to boil down to: We are macho manly men because we can carry big guns and kill people. If women can also carry big guns and kill people, we won't be nearly as macho manly men then. Which I think says more about some people's ideas of females than anything else.

Of course I still think it might be more they're afraid that a pissed off sharpshooting lady will take her frustrations and anger out in a very personal way and REALLY unman them. ;)

I believe that women should be allowed to serve in the military as equals to men. Anything less is gender discrimination.

No, it a case of women are not physically suited to combat, so let's not fuck up the forces for the sake of feminists and PC politicians.
Men are simply stronger and faster then women at the same height, weight and training. They are also a distraction, liable to cause tension in mixed units, generally psycholgically unsuited to battle, and more likely to get assualted/abused if captured.
Women are separated in physically based sports because they can not usually compete with men, and skill based sports for the sake of consistency.
This is not to say men are superior in all ways, merely that war is best suited for men, due to gender differences.

The above notwithstanding, the women of Raven 42 kicked ass. Makes me proud.

"Those seven Americans (with the three wounded) killed in total 24 heavily armed enemy, wounded 6 (two later died), and captured one unwounded, who feigned injury to escape the fight. They seized 22 AK-47s, 6x RPG launchers w/ 16 rockets, 13x RPK machineguns, 3x PKM machineguns, 40 hand grenades, 123 fully loaded 30-rd AK magazines, 52 empty mags, and 10 belts of 2500 rds of PK ammo....

Of the 7 members of Raven 42 who walked away, two are Caucasian Women, the rest men-one is Mexican-American, the medic is African-American, and the other two are Caucasian-the great American melting pot."

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006564.php

What happened to No. 7
Two women, a black guy, a mexican guy, and two white guys make 6

This debate is hot now, because of its urgency. America is running out of troops in Iraq. I know members of the Guard that have been sent over there. Thats right the national guard. Women should be sent into combat because they can fight. If you think they'll slow down a unit or be a distraction, the answer is simple, put women in their own combat unit. There is no reason for them to be excused from battle. None. but I do think that Bush's daughters should go first! hehee

Segregation always has a heavy potential of abuse, they should be mixed in with normal troops (though there are some issues with navy and subs being able to provide separated room and bathing … some ships or subs just do not have the room for separated living quarters)

I think the primary question is whether "allowing women in combat would aid or hinder military effectiveness". And we need to consider a number of cultural issues in order to answer that.

No, it a case of women are not physically suited to combat, so let's not fuck up the forces for the sake of feminists and PC politicians.
Men are simply stronger and faster then women at the same height, weight and training.
Thats why nearly everyone who supports women in combat, me included, comes up with "if they pass the same tests".
What most people tend to forget, the israeli experiences are nearly sixty years old now, and i daresay not really transferable to each and every society. In the last sixty years the perception of female roles in society changed radically. Back then women were caretakers, a woman being single with 25 and working a steady job was extraordinary. Modern society has come to a point where women are mostly viewed as man's equal, thus the chivalric "coming to aid the poor damsel"-reflex isnt a given automatic anymore. This is one of the strongest points against women in combat service and i find it rather outdated.
About being raped when taken prisoner, bad luck. This is a risk they knew about before enlisting and if they are willing to take it, let them. It is a personal risk, not that of the unit and therefore does not diminish the combat value of a troop including women. Besides, men can get raped too.
If they arent psychologically able to do combat (unsubstantiated generalization, if i might add), why would they enroll for such a position?
Women being a distraction. To make it short, once the bullets fly the last thing you do is look at your comrades boobs. If the average soldier isnt disciplined enough to keep his mind on track once he sees a woman then the army is doomed no matter what.

If a person has the physical and psychological fortitude to do a job, they should not be restricted from it due to gender. Period.

If I remember correctly, the Israeli experience involved the negative psychological effect of female casualties on male troops.

No, it a case of women are not physically suited to combat, so let's not fuck up the forces for the sake of feminists and PC politicians.
Men are simply stronger and faster then women at the same height, weight and training. They are also a distraction, liable to cause tension in mixed units, generally psycholgically unsuited to battle, and more likely to get assualted/abused if captured.
Women are separated in physically based sports because they can not usually compete with men, and skill based sports for the sake of consistency.
This is not to say men are superior in all ways, merely that war is best suited for men, due to gender differences.
I understand that many men need to believe this to feel better about themselves, but the truth is women are every bit as capable as men.

"Men are simply stronger and faster then women at the same height, weight and training. They are also a distraction, liable to cause tension in mixed units, generally psycholgically unsuited to battle, and more likely to get assualted/abused if captured."

I've been in the Army, and seen plenty of women who could qualify for the infantry in terms of their physical capabilities.

I say just give a physical qualification test - say, a ruck march (a yomp, in British terms) over 12 miles with 120 pounds of gear.

Women can already shoot and use other weapons. Might have a strength test for chambering a round in the M2 .50 cal.

They are a pleasant distraction, if distracting.

I've never seen the tension in mixed units.

Some women (especially those that volunteer) are psychologically suited.

Men get raped and abused, too. I've seen photos by British soldiers from WW II where they forced German soldiers to sexually assault each other.

Women do quite well in combat - just ask the Soviet Army in WW II.

I've also seen women who can kick the ass of most men I've met - so I don't believe it would be a problem.

In my personal opinion, its not a question of physical or mental ability. Of course there are many women that qualify in both areas. There are many men that dont.
I would prefer women dont serve in combat. Some examples cited of women in combat-Israel and Russia- they didnt have a choice-every able bodied person was needed-this was more born of desperation. I dont think we need our countries wives, mothers, sisters and daughters in combat. I feel the US is a society where the men should do the fighting. I dont want to see an age where we dont have a choice but to enlist women for combat roles.
I dont like to see any of our soldiers wounded, maimed or killed. There is something I cant quite explain when its a woman though.
Maybe this is a 50s mentality. Maybe I've got it all wrong. Dont mistake my opinion for a "macho" chauvanistic one-thats not what I base my opinion on.

In my personal opinion, its not a question of physical or mental ability. Of course there are many women that qualify in both areas. There are many men that dont.
I would prefer women dont serve in combat. Some examples cited of women in combat-Israel and Russia- they didnt have a choice-every able bodied person was needed-this was more born of desperation. I dont think we need our countries wives, mothers, sisters and daughters in combat. I feel the US is a society where the men should do the fighting. I dont want to see an age where we dont have a choice but to enlist women for combat roles.
I dont like to see any of our soldiers wounded, maimed or killed. There is something I cant quite explain when its a woman though.
Maybe this is a 50s mentality. Maybe I've got it all wrong. Dont mistake my opinion for a "macho" chauvanistic one-thats not what I base my opinion on.
So you value women's lives more than men? For what reason?

This poll is biased. The answer I was gonna put isn't on there.

"Only women should be sent to the front lines. After all, they are the best at making peace and negotiations, right?"

Actually that's a kind of cynical way to get my point across. When people make polls like this they are always biased. Even the harshest feminist is really soft on the idea of equality of the genders. If it is a favorable thing, women must be treated _at least as good_, but better is allowed.

If it is a disfavorable thing like service, or dangerous occupation, then women _at worst_ are equal, but they might be let off with softer treatment.

Yet in _absolutely no case_ does anyone ever contend that women ought to be out there by themselves fighting a war while the men are behind the scenes "supporting them" from a safe distance.

But then, if the genders really were equal, this wouldn't be cynical would it? Such an opinion would not invoke the wrath of political correctness unless there was a real difference.

What I really believe is that there is no real "equality" between the genders. Nor do I believe that "men oppress women" or have kept them down for milennia. I think that there are natural roles, and that men are far more suited for dangerous occupations when that is necessary.

The shoe on the other foot being that, no matter how badly they might want to help out, there is really no way a man can help in the task of creating a new generation. Such an ability is a valuable ability for unique groups that are dying out. Being able to bear young (being female), makes them valuable and worthy of the greater portion of our respect than when compared to men.

This poll is biased. The answer I was gonna put isn't on there.

"Only women should be sent to the front lines. After all, they are the best at making peace and negotiations, right?"

Actually that's a kind of cynical way to get my point across. When people make polls like this they are always biased. Even the harshest feminist is really soft on the idea of equality of the genders. If it is a favorable thing, women must be treated _at least as good_, but better is allowed.

If it is a disfavorable thing like service, or dangerous occupation, then women _at worst_ are equal, but they might be let off with softer treatment.

Yet in _absolutely no case_ does anyone ever contend that women ought to be out there by themselves fighting a war while the men are behind the scenes "supporting them" from a safe distance.

But then, if the genders really were equal, this wouldn't be cynical would it? Such an opinion would not invoke the wrath of political correctness unless there was a real difference.
I have said that men and women should be equal in combat. I don't believe they should be considered superior.

I have said that men and women should be equal in combat. I don't believe they should be considered superior.
I had begun editing to clarify my point when you replied. Read the paragraph I added at the bottom of my previous reply.

I had begun editing to clarify my point when you replied. Read the paragraph I added at the bottom of my previous reply.
I still disagree with your point of view.

This poll is biased. The answer I was gonna put isn't on there.

"Only women should be sent to the front lines. After all, they are the best at making peace and negotiations, right?"

Actually that's a kind of cynical way to get my point across. When people make polls like this they are always biased. Even the harshest feminist is really soft on the idea of equality of the genders. If it is a favorable thing, women must be treated _at least as good_, but better is allowed.

If it is a disfavorable thing like service, or dangerous occupation, then women _at worst_ are equal, but they might be let off with softer treatment.

Yet in _absolutely no case_ does anyone ever contend that women ought to be out there by themselves fighting a war while the men are behind the scenes "supporting them" from a safe distance.

But then, if the genders really were equal, this wouldn't be cynical would it? Such an opinion would not invoke the wrath of political correctness unless there was a real difference.

What I really believe is that there is no real "equality" between the genders. Nor do I believe that "men oppress women" or have kept them down for milennia. I think that there are natural roles, and that men are far more suited for dangerous occupations when that is necessary.

The shoe on the other foot being that, no matter how badly they might want to help out, there is really no way a man can help in the task of creating a new generation. Such an ability is a valuable ability for unique groups that are dying out. Being able to bear young (being female), makes them valuable and worthy of the greater portion of our respect than when compared to men.

There’s no way a man can help creating a new generation? How bout the fact that he donated his genetic material … pretty significant contribution lol (note I am not saying women do not go through a lot but saying men have NO part is hardly true either)

So you value women's lives more than men? For what reason?


I'm a man. And its in my nature to be protective of all the women in my life.

As long as the Higher-ups don't get all PC and LOWER physical standards to ensure there are "enough" women ('a la Title IX) I've got no issues with it. Vasquez Rocked. I also believe there should be HIGHER standards for each skill set. Women rock in Jet-jock (jog-bra?) slots. Better G-force capability. Armor? Hell Yeah. Navy, absolutely. Grunt/SF? Only the toughest (male or female) need apply.

I'm a man. And its in my nature to be protective of all the women in my life.
Well, isn't that lovely? Patronizing all the women "in your life". You must be so pleased with yourself.

Well, isn't that lovely? Patronizing all the women "in your life". You must be so pleased with yourself.
From a strictly scientific perspective, it's in his genetic interest to do so. Read your biology textbook.

In my opinion, if you take the exapmles already given (WWII etc.) it shows what people will do when they reach a point where they have the option of kill or be killed. When it comes dowwn to this, whoever has the faster reflexes or is more agile etc is more than likely to win.

However.

You have to admit when you place the average trained male squaddie against the average trained female squaddie, who's going to win? 99 times out a hundred it's going to be the man, simply because of sheer brute strength (yes there are the occasions of those quite exceptional women in the army - there was a tv show in Britain a couple of years ago called called "SAS : Are you tough enough?" and the winner was a woman. But a trained triathlete. Therefore the point of this is to say that no, women should not be in the army, but more to the point that they should serve in different roles within the army).

Yes, give the ones who deserve it and prove they can take it, the posts they deserve, but they know the risks when they sign up, and that's the end of the story.

It's more in a male's nature to kill, mainly for procreation and protection of territory (examples given earlier like Lions, but that's for survival and to keep the Pride going, and even then the male may often get first pick of the carcass).

I suppose the whole point of this rant was to say that, yes allow women in the army etc, but keep them away from the fighting unless they show a knack for it, in other words, stick to the strengths that you have, whether that be slicing carrots or zeroing a rifle...

From a strictly scientific perspective, it's in his genetic interest to do so. Read your biology textbook.
Nonexistant. I'm homeschooled. We prefer more practical approaches. :D

I, personally, do not believe that women should not be allowed in combat.


1) Physically, they do not have as much muscle (on the average) as your average man. That is a big factor, as a hundred and twenty pound combat load does not scale itself back if you are smaller.

2)There is also the issue of discipline. Men will be men, and women in similar conditions will *breed* disorder and possibly a few other humans. A woman shot or killed in combat would distract the fighters more because most men (myself included) do not want to see a hurt woman.

3)Physically, women do not have as much body mass as a man. More obdy mass makes it easier to stop otherwise non-lethal but still harmful things such as shrapnel. Case in point-President Reagan's physical build saved him because he had such strong muscles.

4) Personally, if I see a woman in combat, I would take more chances to defend her position than I would if it were another guy. Just chilvary...it dictates that men protect women at all times, and seeing a psoition full of females overrun would make me rush head-long into a deadly situation because my upbringing would prevent me from accepting such a loss. Most other military personnel are the same way and this would increase casualities.

5) I have nothing against women. If they want to do something, I feel they should in everything except for the Military. Certain things are closed to them because it would do more harm than good. Current US law prohibits women in combat units. You would have to change this law first, and I can see a HUGE political stink because of this.

I believe that women should be allowed to serve in the military as equals to men. Anything less is gender discrimination.
So what if is is gender discrimination? Its being done to save the most amount of lives while making the military the most deadly. Remember Israel's problem with women in combat?

So what if is is gender discrimination? Its being done to save the most amount of lives while making the military the most deadly. Remember Israel's problem with women in combat?
Irrelevant. I was making a statement. You can make whatever assumptions you want, but gender discrimination is not acceptable for any reason.

However.

You have to admit when you place the average trained male squaddie against the average trained female squaddie, who's going to win? 99 times out a hundred it's going to be the man, simply because of sheer brute strength (yes there are the occasions of those quite exceptional women in the army - there was a tv show in Britain a couple of years ago called called "SAS : Are you tough enough?" and the winner was a woman. But a trained triathlete. Therefore the point of this is to say that no, women should not be in the army, but more to the point that they should serve in different roles within the army).

You have obviously not been in any martial arts with women in the past … low center of gravity combined with speed that I would say the hand to hand win ratio would be closer to 60 40 in favor of the man (maybe … I am not negating the effects of strength or reach)
But get out of a hand to hand situation I would be willing to bet it would be even closer to 50 50 … some of the reaction time I see out of sparing partners is simply amazing

It is stupid to let women in the military. Women are more important because they build the population and are better mothers at taking care of children. Why do you think women and children are first instead of men, they are important. Why do you think women aren't allowed in any U.S. Special Forces, because women can't keep up, I can't even keep up (even though i'm a man). Women are vital for bringing life. Men are evolved to be better and stronger than women. If women want to join, they must do the same number of requirements as the men. Nothing less than the men.

This is just my opinion, and my ideals. You want to fight. Will take take it out back.

It is stupid to let women in the military. Women are more important because they build the population and are better mothers at taking care of children. Why do you think women and children are first instead of men, they are important. Why do you think women aren't allowed in any U.S. Special Forces, because women can't keep up, I can't even keep up (even though i'm a man). Women are vital for bringing life. Men are evolved to be better and stronger than women. If women want to join, they must do the same number of requirements as the men. Nothing less than the men.

This is just my opinion, and my ideals. You want to fight. Will take take it out back.
So if a woman can keep up what is wrong with her doing the same job (which she would be qualified for)?

Why is it not acceptable? If gender discrimination in certain areas saves human lives, which of the two is worse?

If you answer:

*Gender discrimination is worse--You have less regard for human life than you do for butch's right to do whatever she wants (which is not mentioned in the American Constitution, nor in any other important document than the Magna Carta)

*Dead people are worse-- Then you understand that lives come first in the Military. You want the least amount of casualities on both sides, and breaking unit discipline can (and usually does) lead to more people's death. This will increse hatred for the enemy and even less discipline. Disciplin is the cornerstone of all armed fores, and without discipline, you are no more than a loose cannon militia.

Why is it not acceptable? If gender discrimination in certain areas saves human lives, which of the two is worse?

If you answer:

*Gender discrimination is worse--You have less regard for human life than you do for butch's right to do whatever she wants (which is not mentioned in the American Constitution, nor in any other important document than the Magna Carta)

*Dead people are worse-- Then you understand that lives come first in the Military. You want the least amount of casualities on both sides, and breaking unit discipline can (and usually does) lead to more people's death. This will increse hatred for the enemy and even less discipline. Disciplin is the cornerstone of all armed fores, and without discipline, you are no more than a loose cannon militia.

But you are taking it as a given that discriminating against women in this case saves lives … no proof just statements so far.
If they are as qualified as a man and can do the complete job I see no reason why they should not be able to serve their country in the same manner

Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but it is fact. On average, men have 20 percent more muscle mass than women. I don't know if this is due to a natural thing, or an evolutionary thing, but it is fact. Just keep that in mind when discussing what type of role women should have in the military, if any.

You have obviously not been in any martial arts with women in the past … low center of gravity combined with speed that I would say the hand to hand win ratio would be closer to 60 40 in favor of the man (maybe … I am not negating the effects of strength or reach)
But get out of a hand to hand situation I would be willing to bet it would be even closer to 50 50 … some of the reaction time I see out of sparing partners is simply amazing
Heh. Reminds me of the good ol' days taking karate at the YMCA/"Little Gym". I loved it so much. It took a good amount of disipline but it was entirely worth it. I found karate incredibly calming and therapeutic and it helped me get through some rough times in my life. I'm thinking about taking it up again, or maybe fencing. I love combat techniques so much.

BTW, I kept up with the "Little Gym" class just fine, which was mostly girls, and the YMCA class just fine, which was a mixture of various skill levels, ages, races and genders. I never had a problem when we were sparring.

Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but it is fact. On average, men have 20 percent more muscle mass than women. I don't know if this is due to a natural thing, or an evolutionary thing, but it is fact. Just keep that in mind when discussing what type of role women should have in the military, if any.
Just because it is an average does not mean that there are not some women supremely qualified for the service they are applying for (there not be the same percentage qualified in the general population but that should not disqualify those that are capable)

So if a woman can keep up what is wrong with her doing the same job (which she would be qualified for)?

It's the principle. Women have and always will be important than men. I can't find the words.

AHAH!! as to my knowledge (*and please correct me if im wrong) the Equal Rights Amendment was shot down many-a-time because of women who did NOT want equal status as men in society (ie: wages, and other) because along with the equal status came the equal chances of them being drafted into war.

Though I do not forsee a draft anywhere in the immediate future (the military has so many more procedures, and as draft is the absolute last resort), if women want to "have the same rights as men" (and they do already, but they still complain that they dont), then they should have an equal chance of being drafted to war.

You see, nowadays, if youre drafted they dont just slap a gun in your hands and send you to the front lines. There are months of testing and training, the officers will decide where you belong in the army (or navy, marines, airforce...) based on your knowledge, training, and ability (so dont worry about the draft). So all in all... women should be in combat all the same as men... (unless of course they are pregnant or something like that).

think of it... handing a gun to a woman on her period who hasnt eaten for a few days and is carrying half her weight around on her back in 100 degree weather.... just a powder keg ready to be unleashed on the enemy.

You have obviously not been in any martial arts with women in the past … low center of gravity combined with speed that I would say the hand to hand win ratio would be closer to 60 40 in favor of the man (maybe … I am not negating the effects of strength or reach)
But get out of a hand to hand situation I would be willing to bet it would be even closer to 50 50 … some of the reaction time I see out of sparing partners is simply amazing

I have been in martial arts for just under five years, and have sparred many a women. I have to say that the win ratio is around 3 out of 4 favoring men. Why? Because most men who are fighting hand-to-hand have figured out how to fight at their best. It takes women more time to figure out how to fight because it is not in their nature as I have seen. I'm not saying that woman don't know how to or choose not to fight. I've seen it, and honestly, men can fight better if given the same training and opponent because their physical build and nature allows them to make the best use of their body.

It's the principle. Women have and always will be important than men. I can't find the words.
So if women are so important to you, why can't they have the right to choose rather or not they wish to risk their own lives in combat?

Heh. Reminds me of the good ol' days taking karate at the YMCA/"Little Gym". I loved it so much. It took a good amount of disipline but it was entirely worth it. I found karate incredibly calming and therapeutic and it helped me get through some rough times in my life. I'm thinking about taking it up again, or maybe fencing. I love combat techniques so much.

BTW, I kept up with the "Little Gym" class just fine, which was mostly girls, and the YMCA class just fine, which was a mixture of various skill levels, ages, races and genders. I never had a problem when we were sparring.
3th degree black belt here … and tell ya what you will kick ass if you want to :) my recommendations is judo throwing seems supremely suited to women with their hip placement and low center of gravity (I have only dabbled in judo some)

It helped get me through my awkward stages in life … (I have dropped it really the last few years when getting my masters but might take it up again)


(and girls at the young ages were usualy bigger then the boys ... they kicked our ass all the time lol)

So if women are so important to you, why can't they have the right to choose rather or not they wish to risk their own lives in combat?

Well they can serve if they want to. But why do they want to serve.

I have been in martial arts for just under five years, and have sparred many a women. I have to say that the win ratio is around 3 out of 4 favoring men. Why? Because most men who are fighting hand-to-hand have figured out how to fight at their best. It takes women more time to figure out how to fight because it is not in their nature as I have seen. I'm not saying that woman don't know how to or choose not to fight. I've seen it, and honestly, men can fight better if given the same training and opponent because their physical build and nature allows them to make the best use of their body.
2 out of our 5 3rd degree black belts or greater are women

They took more medals last tourney that I was in then the rest of us. Get them into a throwing situation and they are deadly (and what discipline always great to run into someone that has done martial arts)

But you are taking it as a given that discriminating against women in this case saves lives … no proof just statements so far.
If they are as qualified as a man and can do the complete job I see no reason why they should not be able to serve their country in the same manner
Last post for the day:
IT DOES SAVE LIVES! Here's proof. Allowing homosexuals into the military was just the same. They break discipline because they are different from the rest of the unit. Women are going to be different from the rest of the unit, and will provide a distraction to most male troops. Distractions=discipline problems. Ask any combat veteran this and they'll agree. And just as with homos, women make/made the unit less cohesive due to differences and a different background.

Well they can serve if they want to. But why do they want to serve.
Why do a lot of men want to serve?
To protect their homes and country
To protect their way of life
To protect what the hold dear
To contribute

3th degree black belt here … and tell ya what you will kick ass if you want to :) my recommendations is judo throwing seems supremely suited to women with their hip placement and low center of gravity (I have only dabbled in judo some)

It helped get me through my awkward stages in life … (I have dropped it really the last few years when getting my masters but might take it up again)


(and girls at the young ages were usualy bigger then the boys ... they kicked our ass all the time lol)
Sadly, there aren't any judo classes in the area right now that my mom and I know about. I do love the concept, though. Using your opponent's weight against them? Genius!

Last post for the day:
IT DOES SAVE LIVES! Here's proof. Allowing homosexuals into the military was just the same. They break discipline because they are different from the rest of the unit. Women are going to be different from the rest of the unit, and will provide a distraction to most male troops. Distractions=discipline problems. Ask any combat veteran this and they'll agree. And just as with homos, women make/made the unit less cohesive due to differences and a different background.
We did all the combat veterans on the board so far have said the opposite

Why do a lot of men want to serve?
To protect their homes and country
To protect their way of life
To protect what the hold dear
To contribute

Well that a lot of bullshit.

Sadly, there aren't any judo classes in the area right now that my mom and I know about. I do love the concept, though. Using your opponent's weight against them? Genius!
Its deffinatly hard to get used to specialy when I am from a "mutt" disipline

Well that a lot of bullshit.
Oh care to explain why? Or do you just like declaring things such

Well they can serve if they want to. But why do they want to serve.
All the reasons that UpwardThrust said and, in some cases, to help further the feminist cause.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050520/pl_usatoday/panelsdecisionreheatswomenincombatdebate

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050519/pl_nm/arms_congress_dc_9

I am curious here on what NSers feel the role of women in the military should be. Currently there is debate about wether women belong in hazardous combat-support roles. They currently are not allwed in direct combat roles.

What do you feel? (poll coming)

Raw numbers, women are more valuable postwar than men in the rebuilding phase.

How many women can one man impregnate? LOTS.

How many MEN can one Woman impregnate? Zero.

Babies come 1-2 per customer normally. From a national perspective, it's suicidal to expend the next generation along with the current one in infantry combat.

That's the first thing.

Second, there's the hygiene issue. Male bits are mostly external, they can be washed out of a canteen cup and they don't...they aren't that messy.

Female bits include a process wherein they have a 28 day cycle of shedding the interior materials, along with a bit of blood. Controlling this is a major issue in the field, even if it's quick'n'easy in the rear areas.
Women get infections in that area that have to be treated-that men don't get.

This may be controllable by artificial means, but that increases your expense for a minimal increase in capability.

Third: the Rape issue, Fraternization, and Discipline. this should be self-explanatory. While it's true a man might be raped, it's unlikely. Most enemy combatants aren't going to look at a man's hairy ass and see love. Likewise, you're dealing with nineteen-year-old hormone factories. Jealousies, desire, horniness, and other disruptive influences in the ranks are not-unthinkable. They're VERY thinkable.
Armies don't work well when the soldiers are replaying 90210 in the platoon.

Fourth: Psychological factors. Women use both hemispheres of their brains to solve problems, that means they tend to have both a better grasp of emotional cues, and tend to employ more emotion in making their decisions (on average, which is how an army works logistically. Averages.) This also makes the task of training one to kill on command is more difficult and requires more nuanced training than it does for men, because on average, your trainees won't respond to the same techniques the same way.
the second side of this, is it's harder to get one to stop once you've got her started. The Female is the deadlier of the species, which makes a controlled-action more difficult from the Commander's point of view.
Women also don't have many inhibitions about killing other women (taken again on average.)

Male Chauvenism has probably saved more women, villagers, and kids than orders from above have.

Finally: there's the problem of average vs. average. On average, women have higher pain-tolerances, better G-force tolerances, faster reflexes, but less upper-body strength and stamina, than men from the same demographic grouping.

Fighter pilots don't have to look at you to kill you, and they don't have to remember the screams. It's one-step-removed. they operate from bases, if they do their job right, they don't wind up on the ground where people are trying to kill them/do unspeakable things to them.
Fighter pilots need quick reflexes, relatively low mass bodies, with high-g tolerance and cooperative natures (Women are better in collaborative efforts on average than men).
Fighter Pilots are pretty much universally officers. this has a wonderful effect on preventing in-the-ranks hanky-panky and the associated miniature soap operas. You're unlikely to get fragging incidents over messy breakups.

Therefore, Women are superior material for most Jet-Pilot MOS's, but poor choice (due to innate value, and costs of adjusting to female physiological and psychological differences) in Infantry, Artillery, Armour, or slow-and-vulnerable helicopter aviation. they probably make good Bomber crew as well.

This, of course, is not the way the future is going to go, or concurrent with DoD policy directions and popular political stances. Point of example: 1993, we're going to Saudi on a six-month deployment covering the no-fly-zone. Twenty out of one hundered twenty eight personnel in my battery were females (ADA allows females in HiMAD roles).
Eighteen were pregnant within a week prior to deployment, and remained behind at Ft. Polk while the rest of the Battalion went to go play in the sandbox-including key personnel whose roles had to be filled-via-improvisation (an entire launcher crew had to be scrounged out of Headquarters platoon and Maintenance Platoon-who were short because we lost two techs and three Mechanics to the Stork).

Had this been a period of active fighting on that front, the unit was significantly understrength from this. No charges were filed, though it was obvious that the deed resulting in the pregnancies was voluntary.

By way of comparison, being unsuitable for deployment for a much-shorter-term injury (say, broken arm on the ski slopes while on leave) is punishable under UCMJ. (Broken arm is maybe three months tops. Pregnancy is nine months, plus maternity leave.)

Oh care to explain why? Or do you just like declaring things such

I can't find the words. Well this is my opinion, not yours. If you want to fight. I'll bring my K-Bar.

I can't find the words. Well this is my opinion, not yours. If you want to fight. I'll bring my K-Bar.
Are you assuming that UpwardThrust is female?

I can't find the words. Well this is my opinion, not yours. If you want to fight. I'll bring my K-Bar.
Way to back up your opinion with facts :rolleyes:
… from the women I know in the guard and military those are the reasons they stated to me … if you know better by all means share

I've been in the Army, and seen plenty of women who could qualify for the infantry in terms of their physical capabilities.

I say just give a physical qualification test - say, a ruck march (a yomp, in British terms) over 12 miles with 120 pounds of gear.

Women can already shoot and use other weapons. Might have a strength test for chambering a round in the M2 .50 cal.

They are a pleasant distraction, if distracting.

I've never seen the tension in mixed units.

Some women (especially those that volunteer) are psychologically suited.

Men get raped and abused, too. I've seen photos by British soldiers from WW II where they forced German soldiers to sexually assault each other.

Women do quite well in combat - just ask the Soviet Army in WW II.

I've also seen women who can kick the ass of most men I've met - so I don't believe it would be a problem.

I would add the caveat that in any Arabic culture, you're going to find it hard to use women as sole occupiers. While it's good to have them around so you can talk to civilian women, it's useless when you want to talk to civilian men as though you're in charge. They won't listen to you - even if you have a gun.

It takes men and women to do the job. I see no reason why qualified men and qualified women can't both do the same job.

Well, isn't that lovely? Patronizing all the women "in your life". You must be so pleased with yourself.


Patronizing? I am pleased and comfortable with myself.
You asked my opinion and I gave it. I didnt declare people had to live by it,just gave my opinion and then explained it-to someone that doesnt deserve an explanation.

Whats with your stupid attitude? What makes you so smug?

Patronizing? I am pleased and comfortable with myself.
You asked my opinion and I gave it. I didnt declare people had to live by it,just gave my opinion and then explained it-to someone that doesnt deserve an explanation.

Whats with your stupid attitude? What makes you so smug?
Probably because people have used the “its natural for men to do this ….” Attitude in the past to justify inequality

Patronizing? I am pleased and comfortable with myself.
You asked my opinion and I gave it. I didnt declare people had to live by it,just gave my opinion and then explained it-to someone that doesnt deserve an explanation.

Whats with your stupid attitude? What makes you so smug?
My "stupid" attitude? I wouldn't consider my attitude "stupid", nor would I consider yours to be invalid in any way. Care to define the word "stupid", just so we're on the same page?

Are you assuming that UpwardThrust is female?


No, UpwardThrust told us he is a boy who got his ass kick by women. He is open minded too. He should be entitled to his own opinion. Everyone has an opinion.

Here's one. Women can't join the Special Forces, only operate the aircraft in the special Forces.

No, UpwardThrust told us he is a boy who got his ass kick by women. He is open minded too. He should be entitled to his own opinion. Everyone has an opinion.

Here's one. Women can't join the Special Forces, only operate the aircraft in the special Forces.
And everyone that has ever spared against those measly women in our area has lost at one point or another … not all the time but they are great competitors … you use it to try to insult it … it is the opposite it is a testament that someone who is 5 foot 3 and 120 pounds can overcome a 6 foot 3 220 pound man of equal strength almost half the time


That’s fine but I wasn’t really stating MY opinion(that you called bullshit) I was listing motivations that I have been told, which was not really my opinion

Nonexistant. I'm homeschooled. We prefer more practical approaches. :D


This explains your beligerant attitude towards my opinion.

No, UpwardThrust told us he is a boy who got his ass kick by women. He is open minded too. He should be entitled to his own opinion. Everyone has an opinion.

Here's one. Women can't join the Special Forces, only operate the aircraft in the special Forces.

Here's one. Women can try out for the Australian SAS. It's just that none of them have passed the whole course yet. Considering that most men don't make it either, does that really say much? Or does it mean that as soon as we have as many women apply as men apply, we might have more women who can really do it?

I've seen women here in the US Army who could probably do it - but there are regulations in place that prevent them from trying.

Irrelevant. I was making a statement. You can make whatever assumptions you want, but gender discrimination is not acceptable for any reason.
Zotona, I completely disagree with your thinking. Discrimination is perfectly acceptable for many reasons. It might not always be acceptable, but a lot of cases it is. Should men be allowed in women's bathrooms? How about women in men's? That's "discrimination" right there. What were you thinking the word "discrimination" means? It means to discriminate.....to tell the difference.

When we speak of compulsory things, a lot of times thats exactly where the discrimination should come in. Prior to 140 years ago, there wasn't a ghost of feminist thinking in this country, and our families were strong and so was our nation. However, we came under attack, and the first thrust of this attack was on this aspect of our way of life. Back then, our families were organized in a more dictatorial style, with men being the legally sanctioned head of household. When that eroded, not only did families gradually fall apart, but so child raising practices, and then also did the behavior on the streets.

You are entitled to your opinion, maybe you think all this is an improvement, but I sure don't. Life was still pretty good when I was a child, and it was sure a lot freer, and there was less crime. You might be in love with the concept of equality....it does appeal to our notion of fairness. But there is nothing in nature that compelled it to conform to our notions. It didn't consult with us when it made us, and it does not care what we think. Any reasonable view of the last several hundred years literally screams out which way is better, and not just for one or the other of the genders.....life was better for _both_ of them until the subtle and underhanded warfare started that no one wants to admit is going on.

(yes there are the occasions of those quite exceptional women in the army - there was a tv show in Britain a couple of years ago called called "SAS : Are you tough enough?" and the winner was a woman. But a trained triathlete.
So why shouldn’t ‘trained triatheles’ and rower girls and others of the ‘Olde British PE teacher’ mentality go in?

but keep them away from the fighting unless they show a knack for it, in other words, stick to the strengths that you have, whether that be slicing carrots or zeroing a rifle... Good one.

1) Physically, they do not have as much muscle (on the average) as your average man. That is a big factor, as a hundred and twenty pound combat load does not scale itself back if you are smaller.
We aren’t really talking of averages.

3th degree black belt here … and tell ya what you will kick ass if you want to my recommendations is judo throwing seems supremely suited to women with their hip placement and low center of gravity (I have only dabbled in judo some)
Good point. In Judo, The women beat up the men easily - though admittedly that is within a fixed rule structure.

Women also don't have many inhibitions about killing other women (taken again on average.)
True.

My "stupid" attitude? I wouldn't consider my attitude "stupid", nor would I consider yours to be invalid in any way. Care to define the word "stupid", just so we're on the same page?


Stupid in your lame attack on me for patronizing the women in my life and mocking me that I must be so pleased with myself.
Stupid as in both in challenging me for no reason and making fun of my opinion.

Here's one. Women can try out for the Australian SAS. It's just that none of them have passed the whole course yet. Considering that most men don't make it either, does that really say much? Or does it mean that as soon as we have as many women apply as men apply, we might have more women who can really do it?

I've seen women here in the US Army who could probably do it - but there are regulations in place that prevent them from trying.

You must be shitting me. Women disguise themselves as me to be Special Forces Operators. Their is a law in in the United States that prevents women from joining the SF. Probably women can make it. Except the movie GI Jane is a lot of bullshit. I hope those women aren't taking steriods.

This explains your beligerant attitude towards my opinion.
My belligerent attitude towards gender discrimination is explained by my previous posts in the forum; most are very obviously against discrimination in any form. It can also be explained by my position on the politcal compass, and, probably, by my own gender.

My belligerent attitude towards gender discrimination is explained by my previous posts in the forum; most are very obviously against discrimination in any form. It can also be explained by my position on the politcal compass, and, probably, by my own gender.


So-this is justification to say to me "you must be so pleased with yourself" ?

What kind of reaction did you expect?

I'm done here. If I go on. my friends who are women are going to kick my ass. And I'll be caught flaming this thread. Good luck. I turn up, when you solve your differences. Adios

Zotona, I completely disagree with your thinking. Discrimination is perfectly acceptable for many reasons. It might not always be acceptable, but a lot of cases it is. Should men be allowed in women's bathrooms? How about women in men's? That's "discrimination" right there. What were you thinking the word "discrimination" means? It means to discriminate.....to tell the difference.
No, I think all public bathrooms should be available to both genders.

When we speak of compulsory things, a lot of times thats exactly where the discrimination should come in. Prior to 140 years ago, there wasn't a ghost of feminist thinking in this country, and our families were strong and so was our nation. However, we came under attack, and the first thrust of this attack was on this aspect of our way of life. Back then, our families were organized in a more dictatorial style, with men being the legally sanctioned head of household. When that eroded, not only did families gradually fall apart, but so child raising practices, and then also did the behavior on the streets.
[snip]

You honestly think there was no feminist thinking? You honestly believe things were better then? You would be wrong. Because of the rules of society, women chose to keep their political views mostly to themselves, and any influencing of politics they did had to be very subtle and low-key. That does not mean it did not happen.

So-this is justification to say to me "you must be so pleased with yourself" ?

What kind of reaction did you expect?
I never said it was justified, did I?

I expected no reaction. I didn't think you'd much care what I said.

I never said it was justified, did I?

I expected no reaction. I didn't think you'd much care what I said.


Well, you totally misread and misunderstood anything I've had to say. I havent disrespected or dicriminated against women.

That being said, when I'm done sharpening your bayonet, you can go right to the front lines.

Well, you totally misread and misunderstood anything I've had to say. I havent disrespected or dicriminated against women.

That being said, when I'm done sharpening your bayonet, you can go right to the front lines.
I never said I would ever want to participate in military action. Frankly, I'm a bit of a hippie and don't see the point in war.

No, I think all public bathrooms should be available to both genders.

Ridiculous. That will never fly. There was a time in my youth that I thought of it in a funny and mischevious way, but thats where such an attitude belongs, in children, not adults who are capable of seeing that the genders are different, and this difference is both reasonable and functional.


You honestly think there was no feminist thinking? You honestly believe things were better then? You would be wrong. Because of the rules of society, women chose to keep their political views mostly to themselves, and any influencing of politics they did had to be very subtle and low-key. That does not mean it did not happen.

The term 'feminist' was coined in the early part of the 20th century. Before that, the thinking was referred to by another term: irrational irresponsibility.

I know the life of both of my grandmothers who considered their lives very blessed. None of the women my age and older thought as you do, and as a result, my family line has been very strong. In other words, instead of bickering and arguing, the women of my family loved. They don't hold the festering wounds that you seem to be, more than describing, even cherishing in a way seeming very akin to Munchhausen Syndrome.

Feminism was created just like any other grass roots movement. It started like a cancer that grew steadily, first killing the attitudes of the youth, and then the family, and putting out deadly shoots into the economy, once this cancer killed the very place where the youth of our society depended on for healthy raising, and good viewpoints and attitudes, juvenile delinquency became rampant, and crime soared.

Feminists see this all too well, but because they tend to be short-term advantaged by the new modern social viewpoint allowing them to abdicate what was their former responsibilities, they are very resistant to admitting to the truth of it. Nevertheless a few women are smart enough to do so. These women (along with men) have started a grass roots vanguard of their own to restore the social order back to what it was in healthier days.

I never said I would ever want to participate in military action. Frankly, I'm a bit of a hippie and don't see the point in war.
Then why do you want to dictate what those in a military action do? If you're not willing to go to the front lines and fight, then you have no say in what happens! It is not your ass on the line, so what do you care what really happens. This is exactly what happened in Vietnam, Home dictated what what "approperiate" over there and we could not adapt to what was going on like we could have. Look at you beautiful political test tube ladies and gentlemen. It looks like it produced Ricin for society!

Last post for the day:
IT DOES SAVE LIVES! Here's proof. Allowing homosexuals into the military was just the same. They break discipline because they are different from the rest of the unit. Women are going to be different from the rest of the unit, and will provide a distraction to most male troops. Distractions=discipline problems. Ask any combat veteran this and they'll agree. And just as with homos, women make/made the unit less cohesive due to differences and a different background.
by that logic blacks or other minorities should not be able to join the military. To many people, not me, but others, they are different enough.

I never said I would ever want to participate in military action. Frankly, I'm a bit of a hippie and don't see the point in war.

No kidding.

Ridiculous. That will never fly. There was a time in my youth that I thought of it in a funny and mischevious way, but thats where such an attitude belongs, in children, not adults who are capable of seeing that the genders are different, and this difference is both reasonable and functional.


And yet unisex bathrooms are plentifull
I also like how you managed to work in the attempt to categorize her as a “child” (as if it was a derogatory term) to discredit her viewpoint

Sneaky but still ad-hominem

Then why do you want to dictate what those in a military action do? If you're not willing to go to the front lines and fight, then you have no say in what happens! It is not your ass on the line, so what do you care what really happens. This is exactly what happened in Vietnam, Home dictated what what "approperiate" over there and we could not adapt to what was going on like we could have. Look at you beautiful political test tube ladies and gentlemen. It looks like it produced Ricin for society!
I don't want to "dictate" anything. I merely want to give my opinion. I do have a say. Unless... you now want to "dictate" who has the right to freedom of speech and who doesn't.

I'm a man. And its in my nature to be protective of all the women in my life.

My thoughts exactly.

It does not take much research to see the diffrences in men and women. Even the minor diffrences in strength, flexibility (physical) And agression, problem solving (mental) are more than prevelent taking into account that if you have spent your career training x (x is *any* animal or breed of a specific animal) then depeding on your training some lived and some died, in direct proportion to your training you would (should) not think that you would be equally good at training y (where y is any *other* animalor any other breed of animal.) Even the slightest changes makes training more difficult and surviving less likely.

Solution = raise children to fight and genetically enhance them.

"cough" they should be dancing (nakedish) on a stage to boost morale ;)

I agree with this dude.
Women would be a distraction on the battlefeild and romantic ties may appear within a platoon.This is not good as then the soldier can not concentrate.

Women say they want to be equal to men. If so, then they should be sent to the front lines just like men are. No discrimination based on gender.

Women say they want to be equal to men. If so, then they should be sent to the front lines just like men are. No discrimination based on gender.
:fluffle: for you! :D

And they should be drafted equally with men, as well...

And they should be drafted equally with men, as well...
Yes, they should.

If women want equal opportunities in civil life, they might as well have the same on the front line.

Yes, they should.

So you claim to be anti-war, but you want an even bigger draft? Hmm, something is fishy here...

So you claim to be anti-war, but you want an even bigger draft? Hmm, something is fishy here...
If there must be a draft, which seems inevitable at this point.

If there must be a draft, which seems inevitable at this point.


i assume youre talking about America... and if that is the postulate @ hand, i must tell you that you are mistake... a draft is not inevitable @ this time. IT is not necessary, and it is not favored @ all by the president, the government in general, and the military. The army, marines, navy, and airforce all have separate ways to have more soldiers... recently we've had thousands of soldiers taken out of germany and france and other non-threatening nations so they can go to IRaq or Afghanistan.

No, im sorry a draft is not going to happen unless we get into a nuclear war with north korea, Iran, and saudi arabia -and the likleyhood of that happening is not very high..atleast for the next 10 years. The military will keep the reserves and already trained officers in the hostile areas where they are needed, for longer shifts. After that, each branch of the US military has its own procedures for always having troops ready and waiting for battle... (SO NO DRAFT) + no congressman, or neither would the president, support a draft, being as it is completely opposed to [bush's] political and moral standpoints.

And yet unisex bathrooms are plentifull
I also like how you managed to work in the attempt to categorize her as a “child” (as if it was a derogatory term) to discredit her viewpoint
Sneaky but still ad-hominem
The only "unisex" bathrooms that those of your "sneaky" persuasion usually point to are not really "unisex". They switch from one to the other depending on who needs to use them at the time. It's either a female bathroom, or a male bathroom. Sorry, but the term "unisex" in this context is misleading, not descriptive. Even if you had a legitimate point (you don't, but IF you did), these kinds of "alternating" bathrooms aren't the rule. They are the exception. I have not ever seen even one true "unisex" bathroom in my life, and I doubt I ever will. Kid.

The term 'feminist' was coined in the early part of the 20th century. Before that, the thinking was referred to by another term: irrational irresponsibility.
Yes, because everybody knows giving women equal rights is just so damn illogical! It's only rational for women to be in the kitchen or popping out kids.


Or not.
:rolleyes:

Yes, because everybody knows giving women equal rights is just so damn illogical! It's only rational for women to be in the kitchen or popping out kids. Or not. :rolleyes:
Now there goes a person, ladies and gentlemen, whose callous regard for procreation is nothing more than the consideration of children as the unwanted by-product of self-gratification. It is hatred under cover of deception to suggest that women are somehow glorified by taking them from the jobs that they historically chose and adapted themselves toward, and insinuate that unless they become car mechanic, coal miners, or soldiers that they are less than worthy. A real woman, such as my wife, is beautiful and creative, and glorious in the kitchen, or teaching the kids.

No one has suggested that anyone be forced into any occupation against his or her will, but rather the issue is the general pattern of attitude that we take toward the idea of a gender role model in society. I sometimes bake cakes, and my wife has been known to help with the car. But there has been no corresponding pejoritive applied to the work that men do that is anywhere similar to that applied to historically feminine role models.

Equal can mean more than one thing. Sometimes it is used to mean "exactly alike" sometimes it is used to mean "equivalent in some regard". Sometimes a dishonest person will purposefully confuse the two. It's a fallacy that is used to make an absurdity seem logical by an appeal to a commonly accepted truth under cover of similar words.

Women were always at least as "equal" in the latter sense; they never will be in the former. In the former sense, inequality is the general rule of nature. Just as we are different in nature, we are different in role models, and because of these things, we have different experiences, and are treated differently under the law, regarding criminal, familial, and other civil.

For those of you who disagree, begin explaining to me when it will be that good fathers are given custody of their children in equal percentages to that of good mothers. Today the "equality" of that picture is "balanced" at 8% - 92% in favor of women.

I voted total.

Women want equality? Well they have to give up immunity from the draft, and say goodbye to chivalry. If you TRULY want equality, you will realize this. Women and men should be treated EXACTLY the same.

I voted total.

Women want equality? Well they have to give up immunity from the draft, and say goodbye to chivalry. If you TRULY want equality, you will realize this. Women and men should be treated EXACTLY the same.
No protests here.

If a woman is suitable for combat, it's stupid to keep her out due to some stereotype of 'all women are weak' or something of the like. And I'm quite positive there are women out there that can pass the same tests that the men do.

It's not that women are weak. They just tend to get raped if captured.

It's not that women are weak. They just tend to get raped if captured.
Women tend to get raped or sexually harrassed in someway at some time in their life regardless. Most women understand that it is the hazard of being one of their own gender.

The only "unisex" bathrooms that those of your "sneaky" persuasion usually point to are not really "unisex". They switch from one to the other depending on who needs to use them at the time. It's either a female bathroom, or a male bathroom. Sorry, but the term "unisex" in this context is misleading, not descriptive. Even if you had a legitimate point (you don't, but IF you did), these kinds of "alternating" bathrooms aren't the rule. They are the exception. I have not ever seen even one true "unisex" bathroom in my life, and I doubt I ever will. Kid.

In one school I went to boys and girls used the same washroom. At the same time in different stalls and everything.

Now there goes a person, ladies and gentlemen, whose callous regard for procreation is nothing more than the consideration of children as the unwanted by-product of self-gratification. It is hatred under cover of deception to suggest that women are somehow glorified by taking them from the jobs that they historically chose and adapted themselves toward, and insinuate that unless they become car mechanic, coal miners, or soldiers that they are less than worthy.
I suppose I really should have phrased the above sentence much better than I did, and not made a sarcastic comment like I had. Especially one such as that which put forward an opinion a bit different than my own. I should try not to post in anger like that.

I don't hold the 'traditional housewife' sort to contempt. If they want to do that, then it's wonderful that they have figured out what they want. But what I don't like is holding that all women should conform to that standard.

Nor would it be good for it to be held that all women need to conform to the standard of working the same jobs that men do. It is preferable to me that women be given the ability to choose whatever path it is that they feel suits them best.
A real woman, such as my wife, is beautiful and creative, and glorious in the kitchen, or teaching the kids.

No one has suggested that anyone be forced into any occupation against his or her will, but rather the issue is the general pattern of attitude that we take toward the idea of a gender role model in society. I sometimes bake cakes, and my wife has been known to help with the car. But there has been no corresponding pejoritive applied to the work that men do that is anywhere similar to historically feminine role models.

Equal can mean more than one thing. Sometimes it is used to mean "exactly alike" sometimes it is used to mean "equivalent in some regard". Sometimes a dishonest person will purposefully confuse the two. It's a fallacy that is used to make an absurdity seem logical by an appeal to a commonly accepted truth under cover of similar words.

Women were always at least as "equal" in the latter sense; they never will be in the former. In the former sense, inequality is the general rule of nature. Just as we are different in nature, we are different in role models, and because of these things, we have different experiences, and are treated differently under the law, regarding criminal, familial, and other civil.
Ah, I seem to have misjudged you completely as well. That's two strikes for me. Well, seeing as my earlier post was based on my assumption that you wanted all women to fit $TRADITIONALROLE unconditionally, and that's not at all what you're saying, I suppose it's rather pointless for me to continue along this line.

Sorry about that.

In one school I went to boys and girls used the same washroom. At the same time in different stalls and everything.
I don't dispute that you did or not. I only dispute the idea that your experience (which I have never seen or even heard of first hand) is the general and common rule.

The rule is the opposite, and your experience is the exception.

[snip]
*Imitating cheesy superhero comic book/movie/TV show.* Neo-Anarchists, thank goodness you're here!

(It gets a bit annoying trying to fight off the male chauvenists all by myself.)

If the woman can pass the same tests that a man can then there is no reason why a woman cannot be in any combat roles.

*Imitating cheesy superhero comic book/movie/TV show.* Neo-Anarchists, thank goodness you're here!
Huh?
What did I do that was so special?
:confused:

First off, women can be raped and sexually harassed, they will also become pregnant, unlike if men were raped.
Second, now some people will say that this is a generalization, that would prove that you are ignorant. Women tend to be more emotinal than men, and men are naturally built stronger than women. A guy can throw an injured commrade, he shouldnt be in that situation if he cant, and over his shoulder and carry him to safety.

Huh?
What did I do that was so special?
:confused:
I just recently decided you were one of my favorite posters. You tend to communciate your point logically and clearly, and it doesn't hurt that I tend to agree with your point of view! :p

I suppose I really should have phrased the above sentence much better than I did, and not made a sarcastic comment like I had. Especially one such as that which put forward an opinion a bit different than my own. I should try not to post in anger like that.

I don't hold the 'traditional housewife' sort to contempt. If they want to do that, then it's wonderful that they have figured out what they want. But what I don't like is holding that all women should conform to that standard.

Nor would it be good for it to be held that all women need to conform to the standard of working the same jobs that men do. It is preferable to me that women be given the ability to choose whatever path it is that they feel suits them best.

Ah, I seem to have misjudged you completely as well. That's two strikes for me. Well, seeing as my earlier post was based on my assumption that you wanted all women to fit $TRADITIONALROLE unconditionally, and that's not at all what you're saying, I suppose it's rather pointless for me to continue along this line.

Sorry about that.
Not a problem, Neo.....as I said, I bake cakes too. Its a refreshing change, sometimes.

The general pattern, and individual choice are separate things, and history shows us the wisdom of having a good pattern to form expectations around. Only then can we guage formation of exceptional considerations in society.

I suppose that as an analogy, we could consider the creation of a new recipe for biscuits. However, if we glorify the ingrediants that have historically made steaks too much, all of our biscuits will probably come out steak-like, and that would be sad, since real biscuits tastes good with steak.

I suppose that you could say vise versa too.

I don't dispute that you did or not. I only dispute the idea that your experience (which I have never seen or even heard of first hand) is the general and common rule.

The rule is the opposite, and your experience is the exception.

...I didn't say that it was the general and common rule. I related an experience. That's all I did. If anything it was just to note the fact that true unisex bathrooms DO exists (however rare). Then again, now it's my personal experience against yours. Though I must say, in most cases it makes more sense to believe someone that's saying they HAVE seen something and therefore it exists, rather than someone saying they haven't and therefore it doesn't... like "I saw a frog!" "I've never seen a frog, they can't exist."

...I think I actually had a point when I started writing this. Hm.

I just recently decided you were one of my favorite posters. You tend to communciate your point logically and clearly.
I do?
:confused:
Well, I can say for sure that one out of the three debate posts in this thread by me was definately not logical or clear...

First off, women can be raped and sexually harassed, they will also become pregnant, unlike if men were raped.
Second, now some people will say that this is a generalization, that would prove that you are ignorant. Women tend to be more emotinal than men, and men are naturally built stronger than women. A guy can throw an injured commrade, he shouldnt be in that situation if he cant, and over his shoulder and carry him to safety.


Ok, let's ban men from the military then. They're the ones doing the harrassment! Why punish the victims?
She joins up, she assumes the risk. If she's willing to take the risk, why stop her? It's not your place to say what risks are too much for someone to take.

You're ignoring the key point here. Women should be allowed in frontline combat if they pass the requirements. You don't let weak men into the army, so no weak women either. Perfect equality.

First off, women can be raped and sexually harassed, they will also become pregnant, unlike if men were raped.
Second, now some people will say that this is a generalization, that would prove that you are ignorant. Women tend to be more emotinal than men, and men are naturally built stronger than women. A guy can throw an injured commrade, he shouldnt be in that situation if he cant, and over his shoulder and carry him to safety.

Women could be raped in any situation and I'd like to believe that most of us men are pretty decent and that military discipline will take hold anyway. There will always be assholes but the simple possiblility of assualt is not a valid reason for fear should not dictate this. Mandatory contraception can be required for women and as for "emotional" I'd say some men are pretty much wimps and some women are complete badasses. Physical and psychological tests are done anyway so we really need to break down these patriarch like stereotypes.

Last post for the day:
IT DOES SAVE LIVES! Here's proof. Allowing homosexuals into the military was just the same. They break discipline because they are different from the rest of the unit. Women are going to be different from the rest of the unit, and will provide a distraction to most male troops. Distractions=discipline problems. Ask any combat veteran this and they'll agree. And just as with homos, women make/made the unit less cohesive due to differences and a different background.


Homosexuals were not "allowed" into the military as an experiment. Ronnie "I was a lifeguard" Reagan signed an executive order banning them in 1982 (?) as a sop to the Christian right. There was never a ban on homosexuals in our military prior to then and I don't see any evidence that discipline and morale are greatly improved by this ban. Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy was a joke, a band-aid used to extend the life of Reagan's ban and an attempt to strike a bizarre middle ground, since traditionally sexual orientation has nothing to do with military service in the US. (During Vietnam claiming to be a homosexual could result in a 4F rating, but that was because the AMA classified it as a mental illness).

...I didn't say that it was the general and common rule. I related an experience. That's all I did. If anything it was just to note the fact that true unisex bathrooms DO exists (however rare). Then again, now it's my personal experience against yours. Though I must say, in most cases it makes more sense to believe someone that's saying they HAVE seen something and therefore it exists, rather than someone saying they haven't and therefore it doesn't... like "I saw a frog!" "I've never seen a frog, they can't exist."

...I think I actually had a point when I started writing this. Hm.
You made the key point of importance. That point was that we are in agreement. True unisex bathrooms exist, but they are, far from being "plentiful" by comparison to the opposite, quite rare.

Since we are now in agreement, the original point of the sub-thread is amply evidenced.

If a woman is suitable for combat, it's stupid to keep her out due to some stereotype of 'all women are weak' or something of the like. And I'm quite positive there are women out there that can pass the same tests that the men do.
That is the key. Women should be required to pass the same exact testing as men. You ladies want to be treated as equals only when it benefits you. Even then they should be limited to the support roles off the front lines. I am happy to say that I have a girlfriend that totally agrees with me....and yes she really is a girl, folks.

....and yes she really is a girl, folks.

Did anybody say she wasn't :)

If they pass the same tests, put them in the same places. Otherwise, it's still unequal.

Women could be raped in any situation and I'd like to believe that most of us men are pretty decent and that military discipline will take hold anyway. There will always be assholes but the simple possiblility of assualt is not a valid reason for fear should not dictate this. Mandatory contraception can be required for women and as for "emotional" I'd say some men are pretty much wimps and some women are complete badasses. Physical and psychological tests are done anyway so we really need to break down these patriarch like stereotypes.

I agree, I mis-pharased what I wrote. I think women are a great asset to the military and if they meet the requirements then they should be in the military, but they cause problems on long 6 month deployments on ships or during war where u are seperated by people u are intimate with. Which doesnt mean they are responsible for it. Guys are the ones that come on to them, usually. Its a tough issue. Personally I think women shouldnt be on special forces or special ops teams.

Why? If they can keep up, why shove them aside?

Homosexuals were not "allowed" into the military as an experiment. Ronnie "I was a lifeguard" Reagan signed an executive order banning them in 1982 (?) as a sop to the Christian right. There was never a ban on homosexuals in our military prior to then and I don't see any evidence that discipline and morale are greatly improved by this ban. Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy was a joke, a band-aid used to extend the life of Reagan's ban and an attempt to strike a bizarre middle ground, since traditionally sexual orientation has nothing to do with military service in the US. (During Vietnam claiming to be a homosexual could result in a 4F rating, but that was because the AMA classified it as a mental illness).

I dont think homosexuals should be allowed in the military. It creates problems. Women cant share a barracks room with men because of the sexual problems, so if a guy likes a guy, its the same thing. They should be separated.

I agree, I mis-pharased what I wrote. I think women are a great asset to the military and if they meet the requirements then they should be in the military, but they cause problems on long 6 month deployments on ships or during war where u are seperated by people u are intimate with. Which doesnt mean they are responsible for it. Guys are the ones that come on to them, usually. Its a tough issue. Personally I think women shouldnt be on special forces or special ops teams.

Hey, if women can make the cut lets see some female special forces! As for the rest, women do need to be treated equally and in this case unfortuneatly men/women equals sex (stating the obvious?). It'll happen and the military will just have to deal with it.

This debate is hot now, because of its urgency. America is running out of troops in Iraq. I know members of the Guard that have been sent over there. Thats right the national guard. Women should be sent into combat because they can fight. If you think they'll slow down a unit or be a distraction, the answer is simple, put women in their own combat unit. There is no reason for them to be excused from battle. None. but I do think that Bush's daughters should go first! hehee
Yeah, and let me go back in so I can take care of them, especially the one with the dark hair and cute laugh. :D

Hey, if women can make the cut lets see some female special forces! As for the rest, women do need to be treated equally and in this case unfortuneatly men/women equals sex (stating the obvious?). It'll happen and the military will just have to deal with it.
My take on this issue exactly!

First off, women can be raped and sexually harassed, they will also become pregnant, unlike if men were raped.
Second, now some people will say that this is a generalization, that would prove that you are ignorant. Women tend to be more emotinal than men, and men are naturally built stronger than women. A guy can throw an injured commrade, he shouldnt be in that situation if he cant, and over his shoulder and carry him to safety.


Differences between individuals are statistically greater than differences based on gender. Which means that while it is not incorrect to say women tend to be weaker than men, it is irrelevant when the greater differences that exist between individual men are not considered as barriers. Every characteristic that has been examined statistically has revealed this same truth, individual variation is fa greater than variation by type.

Differences between individuals are statistically greater than differences based on gender. Which means that while it is not incorrect to say women tend to be weaker than men, it is irrelevant when the greater differences that exist between individual men are not considered as barriers. Every characteristic that has been examined statistically has revealed this same truth, individual variation is fa greater than variation by type.

True, women also have higher pain talerance than men.

My take on this issue exactly!
Love, peace, and understanding for all!!! :fluffle: :D

:mad: WHY ARE THERE NO HIPPIE EMOTICONS?

Did anybody say she wasn't :)
I think he probably meant that she is quite feminine, and that for women, being feminine can be very beautiful and glorious, honorable, and noble.

Love, peace, and understanding for all!!! :fluffle: :D

:mad: WHY ARE THERE NO HIPPIE EMOTICONS?

Because only hippies like hippies. The other 99% of our country is ashamed of them. As in the U.S. Lets see, typical hippies do drugs and have as much unsafe sex as possible, dont support our military........ and from there on i cant thing of anything they do to benefit our country other than draw from wellfare.

I think he probably meant that she is quite feminine, and that for women, being feminine can be very beautiful and glorious, honorable, and noble.

I think it was more of a "Don't think she's not a woman, just because she doesn't agree with women being on the frontline". As in, not all women want completely equal rights.

That sounds so negative. :( I didn't mean it to.

Love, peace, and understanding for all!!! :fluffle: :D

:mad: WHY ARE THERE NO HIPPIE EMOTICONS?
LOL! You know, I think I'll make a hippie icon just for you! :D

And thanks for the fluffle. I don't get many of those. Save one or a dozen for my b/day this Friday. :D

I think it was more of a "Don't think she's not a woman, just because she doesn't agree with women being on the frontline". As in, not all women want completely equal rights.

That sounds so negative. :( I didn't mean it to.
You've brought an important implicitcy into focus. Lets not box a woman into an opinion she doesn't want to have.

It is entirely possible for a woman to hold that being a woman isn't a limitation of her rights. In fact, I am finding that, more and more, women are seeking the right to be women again, since as the former generation left those roles in droves, they were encouraged, pushed and even forced into male roles that they were not comfortable with. Many of them today are, in fact, demanding the right to be allowed to be women again.

I appreciate you saying that as you did.

"cough" they should be dancing (nakedish) on a stage to boost morale ;)

Its people like u who make our arguement look like shit because of stupid and pointless comment. While yes that would be nice but thats beside the point.

You've brought an important implicitcy into focus. Lets not box a woman into an opinion she doesn't want to have.

It is entirely possible for a woman to hold that being a woman isn't a limitation of her rights. In fact, I am finding that, more and more, women are seeking the right to be women again, since as the former generation left those roles in droves, they were encouraged, pushed and even forced into male roles that they were not comfortable with. Many of them today are, in fact, demanding the right to be allowed to be women again.

I appreciate you saying that as you did.

I dunno, I just meant it as everyone has their own opinion that they're entitled to, and if she doesn't think women should be on the frontline, I have no right to say whether her view is right or wrong, whether or not I agree with it.

Though personally, I couldn't care less! 'Cause I don't like fighting. And I think women are fairly well integrated into my country's military. I seem to recall my friend joining the infantry section of the Reserves... Um.

Well damn, so much for knowing anything about my own country.

I say if they want to join the army and can pull their weight, i say let them have at it

Your hippie emoticon! :D


http://img290.echo.cx/img290/9868/hippieemoticon8xy.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)


Better yet:


http://img289.echo.cx/img289/9643/hippieemoticon29my.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

I personally feel that women should not be allowed to take part in combat situations due to the natural inclination of men to protect and comfort a woman (hopefully). This instinct could eventually cause the male to hesitate in a situation that requires the making of split second descisions. (Such as shooting a hostile that has just come running around the corner of a building or going to the aid of a fellow female soldier that has just been wounded). If woman were not permitted to be in these situations the male soldier's choice becomes one dimensional: to follow orders, thus, ensuring victory.

Ideally, people wouldn't be fighting wars at all, but no one wants that, so for now, women should not be prohibited in having the same rôle as men. I see no reason for sexism.

i hear that physical ability is a question, if so why not make decisions for ability to server based on that, if each person has a high enough muscle to body weight ratio... aslo if one is worried about sex in the army due to gender attraction, i'm sure that you would agree to ban homosexuals from the arm. My personal belief, the army should be gender irrelevant, based soley on skills and strength.

If I want to join the military and risk my life for my country, I should be able to.

If I want to join the military and risk my life for my country, I should be able to.
true

Are we still having this debate in this century?

My baby sister did twenty one years in the marines before retiring as a Warrent Officer last year and I have a niece in the Army right now.

So yeah, I think women have a place in the military.

I personally feel that women should not be allowed to take part in combat situations due to the natural inclination of men to protect and comfort a woman (hopefully). This instinct could eventually cause the male to hesitate in a situation that requires the making of split second descisions. (Such as shooting a hostile that has just come running around the corner of a building or going to the aid of a fellow female soldier that has just been wounded). If woman were not permitted to be in these situations the male soldier's choice becomes one dimensional: to follow orders, thus, ensuring victory.
I don’t know about you but it wouldent be come one dimentional if a friend was out there wounded female or male

I personally feel that women should not be allowed to take part in combat situations due to the natural inclination of men to protect and comfort a woman (hopefully). This instinct could eventually cause the male to hesitate in a situation that requires the making of split second descisions. (Such as shooting a hostile that has just come running around the corner of a building or going to the aid of a fellow female soldier that has just been wounded). If woman were not permitted to be in these situations the male soldier's choice becomes one dimensional: to follow orders, thus, ensuring victory.


What a retarded example. I think the first thing you would think is to rescue the wounded soldier, regardless of gender.

Its people like u who make our arguement look like shit because of stupid and pointless comment. While yes that would be nice but thats beside the point.
Psst I think it was a JOKE

with training and socialization, there is no reason why women shouldn't be allowed into every aspect of combat.
1- men and women would need to train together, from beginning, and
2- both genders would need to meet the same entrance criteria, for physical capability and stress-management.

i'm wondering how many people voicing their opinion here have served in combat roles, or at least trained for combat.

I dont think homosexuals should be allowed in the military. It creates problems. Women cant share a barracks room with men because of the sexual problems, so if a guy likes a guy, its the same thing. They should be separated.

I was in the military.

I'm a man. I've showered in front of women who were showering. No one seemed to have a problem. We were all adults who were acting like adults - not like sexually repressed dorks or giggling schoolchildren.

Prior to the Clinton "order" which removed all discretion from the local commander, I served with gays and lesbians. I've showered with gay men hundreds of times, and at no time was I sexually propositioned, nor was I subjected to watching gay men have sex in the shower. They are not the promiscuous freaks that you think they are. They were all good soldiers.

They did not cause any morale problems.

People need to realize that it's typical for adults to act with some responsibility and with some maturity. We're not all stupid horny idiots.

Ideally, people wouldn't be fighting wars at all, but no one wants that, so for now, women should not be prohibited in having the same rôle as men. I see no reason for sexism.
You know, we ought to extend this concept, theres no reason for sexism. No reason. Hm. No reason for any differentiation. In fact, what about the discrimination thats going on with the mentally ill? They should be allowed to vote, and work in society same as everyone else. You could test them to make sure they weren't dangerous or criminal. We have testing down to such a fine art it brings to light any thing that you want to test for. We don't make mistakes when we test. Except, possibly the racial bias in tests that explain why racism seems to exist so markedly in test scores. But discrimination is always bad. In fact, there is another big discrimination issue that has been on the horizon for a long time. We discriminate against many animals and enslave them. We humans need to learn that we are all animals and as such we are all equal. No animal is so superior that he should ursurp the rights of another animal. After all, we all bleed red. There are many pets that have been discarded out there and they need food, shelter and clothing just like the humans. We stole their land from them, after all, and we killed and enslaved them and we even ate their corpses after we killed them. It is all so ghastly.

You know, we ought to extend this concept, theres no reason for sexism. No reason. Hm. No reason for any differentiation. In fact, what about the discrimination thats going on with the mentally ill? They should be allowed to vote, and work in society same as everyone else. You could test them to make sure they weren't dangerous or criminal. We have testing down to such a fine art it brings to light any thing that you want to test for. We don't make mistakes when we test. Except, possibly the racial bias in tests that explain why racism seems to exist so markedly in test scores. But discrimination is always bad. In fact, there is another big discrimination issue that has been on the horizon for a long time. We discriminate against many animals and enslave them. We humans need to learn that we are all animals and as such we are all equal. No animal is so superior that he should ursurp the rights of another animal. After all, we all bleed red. There are many pets that have been discarded out there and they need food, shelter and clothing just like the humans. We stole their land from them, after all, and we killed and enslaved them and we even ate their corpses after we killed them. It is all so ghastly.
Wow, for once we agree. :) ;)

Your hippie emoticon! :D


http://img290.echo.cx/img290/9868/hippieemoticon8xy.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)


Better yet:


http://img289.echo.cx/img289/9643/hippieemoticon29my.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Heh. Thank you! :fluffle:

You know, we ought to extend this concept, theres no reason for sexism. No reason. Hm. No reason for any differentiation. In fact, what about the discrimination thats going on with the mentally ill? They should be allowed to vote, and work in society same as everyone else. You could test them to make sure they weren't dangerous or criminal. We have testing down to such a fine art it brings to light any thing that you want to test for. We don't make mistakes when we test. Except, possibly the racial bias in tests that explain why racism seems to exist so markedly in test scores. But discrimination is always bad. In fact, there is another big discrimination issue that has been on the horizon for a long time. We discriminate against many animals and enslave them. We humans need to learn that we are all animals and as such we are all equal. No animal is so superior that he should ursurp the rights of another animal. After all, we all bleed red. There are many pets that have been discarded out there and they need food, shelter and clothing just like the humans. We stole their land from them, after all, and we killed and enslaved them and we even ate their corpses after we killed them. It is all so ghastly.

The difference is you have not proven any advantage to removing the rights for practicality reasons

Their are 2 points that i would like to make on this issue. For a satrt in general, a woman is not capable of doing the same amount of physical work as a man, but also cannot take the combat stress that certain soldiers get. Also having women in a front line unit shall destroy disclipline. this is because men will build a sexual relatiopnship with the female. It is bound to happen because men have sexual urges, and their is a easy sorce to realease it. With the relationship built, if the women gets shot or killed, the male will go and do someting stupid.

Their are 2 points that i would like to make on this issue. For a satrt in general, a woman is not capable of doing the same amount of physical work as a man, but also cannot take the combat stress that certain soldiers get. Also having women in a front line unit shall destroy disclipline. this is because men will build a sexual relatiopnship with the female. It is bound to happen because men have sexual urges, and their is a easy sorce to realease it. With the relationship built, if the women gets shot or killed, the male will go and do someting stupid.
You have no proof that it will destroy discipline nor that it will make males “go nuts”
And personally I need more then an opinion to justify removing someone’s rights
And speaking of it any proof for the combat stress claim?


Not all men can perform up to the standards set forth in the military … does that mean we should ban all men because some cant make it over the limit?

If the perform the required tasks and can perform above the accepted standards why should they not be allowed to

Any woman should have the right to fight alongside her fellow citizens if she is so inclined. I actually wrote a paper about this very topic several years ago in high school. The gist of it was that women have the same capability as men to pass tests of strength, intelligence, etc, so there is no reason why they should not be allowed to fight on the frontline. As a pacifist, I'm opposed to war in the first place, so I would definitely not be one of those women signing on, but I think the option should be there for those who want it.

Any woman should have the right to fight alongside her fellow citizens if she is so inclined. I actually wrote a paper about this very topic several years ago in high school. The gist of it was that women have the same capability as men to pass tests of strength, intelligence, etc, so there is no reason why they should not be allowed to fight on the frontline. As a pacifist, I'm opposed to war in the first place, so I would definitely not be one of those women signing on, but I think the option should be there for those who want it.
Yup if they pass the required tests (cross gender) and prove themselves to be up to the challenge they have every right to defend what they believe in

Well that a lot of bullshit.


Is it bullshit when a man signs up for the same reasons? :rolleyes:

You have no proof that it will destroy discipline nor that it will make males “go nuts”
And personally I need more then an opinion to justify removing someone’s rights
And speaking of it any proof for the combat stress claim?


Not all men can perform up to the standards set forth in the military … does that mean we should ban all men because some cant make it over the limit?

If the perform the required tasks and can perform above the accepted standards why should they not be allowed to

Basic logistcs, Upward Thrust,

Armies run on "Average Performance" rather than special-cases. They have to in order to function. This is where a modern army (In the technical sense) is different from a knightly brotherhood. On Average women have less upper-body strength, and are more difficult to train and handle in the field than men.
We can bounce exceptions back and forth all day long, but it doesn't change the fundamental way that the military system is configured.
This is why the Army doesn't want people who've had, or have, Asthma or diabetes, or paraplegics. A guy can be a tactical GENIUS, the next Rommel, or Ceasar, but if he's got wheezy lungs or epilepsy, he's on civvy street no matter how well he might qualify otherwise.
It's not that the means for controlling these things aren't available-they're widely available. It's a matter of coping with key supply dilemnas: do you ship Ammunition, or ko-tex? Bandages or Tampons, Antibiotics, or Midol?

The female body is much, much, more resource intensive to maintain under NORMAL conditions than the male body is. A man can go days without washing in a septic environment without contracting a yeast infection. Land Combat is, by definition, a septic environment.
Taken on average, having to rotate a portion of your troops to the rear every two or three days so that they can bathe with soap and hot water is a severe restriction on your overall military effectiveness. Having to account for feminine hygiene products in a supply situation in the field means something else-possibly mission-critical- is left back at camp, because there's only so much gear a body can pack (On Average).

Men don't have to pull their pants down to pee. Small thing, right? (well, some are, heheh) in a camouflage environment, a white, shiny ass makes a good target, and while there are products to enable the ladies to do this, what aren't you going to be carrying (that you need) to make room for it?

None of this says women are unsuitable for ALL combat MOS's-they make superb fighter-pilots and excellent Sailors. Note that both of those tend to be in environments where it is relatively easy to maintain necessary hygiene levels, and in the case of Fighter Jocks, the ladies actually have both physical, and psychological advantages. Women are better (on AVERAGE again) at collaborative and cooperative efforts, they're more verbal, and they're less likely to take stupid risks (ON AVERAGE).
They're also more resistant to G-forces (making them able to fly closer to the plane's limits in a dogfight or strike mission), tend to be smaller and lighter (less mass=better fuel economy, tighter turns, etc).

But when it comes to life "in the mud" they are, on average, less suitable and more maintenance intensive.

I keep on seeing all of these comments about people saying that women wouldn't be able to handle the stress of combat. Where does that come from?? As a woman, I am emotionally stable, and I can handle a lot more than everyone apparently thinks. And so can all the women I know. We're not fragile. We're not going to break.

And with the rape/sexual harrassment issue, that is unfortunately just a risk that every woman takes every time she walks outside. That's more the male's problem than the woman's. In my 20 years, I've been sexually harrassed more times than I can count, but it doesn't stop me from going about my life. I guess it's just part of having boobs, I don't know.

Basic logistcs, Upward Thrust,

Armies run on "Average Performance" rather than special-cases. They have to in order to function. This is where a modern army (In the technical sense) is different from a knightly brotherhood. On Average women have less upper-body strength, and are more difficult to train and handle in the field than men.
We can bounce exceptions back and forth all day long, but it doesn't change the fundamental way that the military system is configured.
This is why the Army doesn't want people who've had, or have, Asthma or diabetes, or paraplegics. A guy can be a tactical GENIUS, the next Rommel, or Ceasar, but if he's got wheezy lungs or epilepsy, he's on civvy street no matter how well he might qualify otherwise.
It's not that the means for controlling these things aren't available-they're widely available. It's a matter of coping with key supply dilemnas: do you ship Ammunition, or ko-tex? Bandages or Tampons, Antibiotics, or Midol?

The female body is much, much, more resource intensive to maintain under NORMAL conditions than the male body is. A man can go days without washing in a septic environment without contracting a yeast infection. Land Combat is, by definition, a septic environment.
Taken on average, having to rotate a portion of your troops to the rear every two or three days so that they can bathe with soap and hot water is a severe restriction on your overall military effectiveness. Having to account for feminine hygiene products in a supply situation in the field means something else-possibly mission-critical- is left back at camp, because there's only so much gear a body can pack (On Average).

Men don't have to pull their pants down to pee. Small thing, right? (well, some are, heheh) in a camouflage environment, a white, shiny ass makes a good target, and while there are products to enable the ladies to do this, what aren't you going to be carrying (that you need) to make room for it?

None of this says women are unsuitable for ALL combat MOS's-they make superb fighter-pilots and excellent Sailors. Note that both of those tend to be in environments where it is relatively easy to maintain necessary hygiene levels, and in the case of Fighter Jocks, the ladies actually have both physical, and psychological advantages. Women are better (on AVERAGE again) at collaborative and cooperative efforts, they're more verbal, and they're less likely to take stupid risks (ON AVERAGE).
They're also more resistant to G-forces (making them able to fly closer to the plane's limits in a dogfight or strike mission), tend to be smaller and lighter (less mass=better fuel economy, tighter turns, etc).

But when it comes to life "in the mud" they are, on average, less suitable and more maintenance intensive.
The “Average” in the population does not necessarily reflect those that are accepted … yes there may be less in the general population that meet the requirements but that does not make those that qualify somehow “weaker” because the population average is lower


The rest are defiantly legitimate concerns for certain situations and defiantly should be accounted for but like you said certain situations such as piloting (not even the pointy nose go fast jets they can also do just as good of job as a front line SAR or helo unit)

If they qualify for the position they are going for and there is no legitimate physical reason for them not being there then there should be no reason they can not act on their principals as well

Women and men together do not make cohesive fighting units. The men are either A) trying to protect the women and prove their machoism by doing that or B) resenting the fact that they have to work or quite possibly take orders from a women. The vast majority of succesful female units have been homogenous units. The Russian air force units in WW2 that used women didn't just use women pilots, they had women officers and even ground crew. There was hardly a man in those units. Of course, none of these units performed any better or worse than male-staffed units, surprising since the females actually had trouble with the planes control-wise. Flying a rickety bi-plane or a Il-2 takes a certain amount of upper body strength that many did not have, requiring both the pilot and copilot to manipulate the control stick on takeoff.

Fully integrating women into the military isn't practical and even detrimental to performance. The best you can hope for is all-female units fighting alongside male units under the same chain of command, which would probably still be male-dominated.

Also, there had been some research showing that women returning from Iraq have a higher incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder than men. The possibility of us having female vets like those that we saw after Vietnam is quite real. As a country I don't think we want that.

Women and men together do not make cohesive fighting units. The men are either A) trying to protect the women and prove their machoism by doing that or B) resenting the fact that they have to work or quite possibly take orders from a women. The vast majority of succesful female units have been homogenous units. The Russian air force units in WW2 that used women didn't just use women pilots, they had women officers and even ground crew. There was hardly a man in those units. Of course, none of these units performed any better or worse than male-staffed units, surprising since the females actually had trouble with the planes control-wise. Flying a rickety bi-plane or a Il-2 takes a certain amount of upper body strength that many did not have, requiring both the pilot and copilot to manipulate the control stick on takeoff.

Fully integrating women into the military isn't practical and even detrimental to performance. The best you can hope for is all-female units fighting alongside male units under the same chain of command, which would probably still be male-dominated.

Also, there had been some research showing that women returning from Iraq have a higher incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder than men. The possibility of us having female vets like those that we saw after Vietnam is quite real. As a country I don't think we want that.

Why is it any better for the males to have post traumatic?

And you just said that women units performed at the same level roughly so why do you go on to use that as a reason to claim it is detrimental?

Also where is your proof that it will not make a cohesive fighting unit? Under stress people act a lot different then the fire breathing macho guy on the street corner

Perhaps I should of been more specific. Units that are all female perform great, nothing inherently wrong with it (assuming you can get enough females to pass the strength test). Whats detrimental is mixed units, with both males and females in them.

Perhaps I should of been more specific. Units that are all female perform great, nothing inherently wrong with it (assuming you can get enough females to pass the strength test). Whats detrimental is mixed units, with both males and females in them.
Oh why is it detrimental? Any real world stats besides brainstorming? Anything backed up by facts?

Not trying to be mean but so far I have seen no proof of a performance or morale difference actually conclusively proved

If a woman is suitable for combat, it's stupid to keep her out due to some stereotype of 'all women are weak' or something of the like. And I'm quite positive there are women out there that can pass the same tests that the men do.

I agree, but on a lighter note how is FEMALE? Weather good and everything?

The point about female's having both separate and extra maintainance was a good one. However, the gender dynamics issue is an even better one.

I think the point that gets lost most (beyond the fact that service is generally a responsibility, moreso than it is a right, and it really screws up the situation to view it as a right) is that the purpose of the forces are for the national defense. It should be paramount to build the best forces. Not to cater to this latest fad that the media has taught the sally-come-latelies to complain about.

I think the question can be defined as "does having women in combat (NOT in the military) enhance our combat effectiveness". If it doesn't, don't do it. In addition to the physical, emotional, and gender/sexist components of the question, consider the cultural and political issues.

For instance, how will the public, not to mention troops, feel if we take significant female casualties? There are potential political consequences that may make the military hesitate in wide-scale deployment women in combat, particularly land warfare. Our enemies have considered this:

'Those Beasts

Here's a scary item, found via Blackfive:
Terrorists in the Abu Musab Zarqawi network in Iraq are specifically trying to kidnap an American female service member to further horrify the U.S. public.

. . .

'We have heard through intelligence channels that several extremist organizations are attempting to capture coalition servicemen and women,' said a senior military officer in Iraq. 'We have instituted additional force protection methods to thwart these attempts.'

Another defense source said there is an 'edict, either on paper or as an order,' within terrorist networks to capture an American female service member.

Of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 11,000 are women. They perform a variety of jobs, serving as drivers, medics, aviators, police and clerks. By law, they are banned from land combat, but they can still come into close contact with the enemy.

. . .

The defense source said Zarqawi's network apparently wants to further shock the Western world by kidnapping servicewomen and displaying them on videotape. Part of the terrorists' strategy is to cause so much bloodshed that President Bush loses public support for the war and is forced politically to bring the troops home.

The source also said that the terrorists might be planning 'payback' for a U.S. female soldier seen taking part in the abuse of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
it's hard to even comment on this story; the thought is so repulsive.

i do think we need to resist the temptation to blame Pvt. England for this new tactic, though. i'm not saying her actions weren't blameworthy - she and her friends certainly made our job more difficult. But remember, every single woman who has been captured in Iraq by the enemy to my knowledge has either been raped or killed. That's in both Gulf wars. So the enemy's desire to film it and show their depravity to the world should not surprise anyone."

http://annika.mu.nu/archives/034217.html
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/07/al_qaeda_want_t.html

Personally it would really piss me off, and I dare say it would have the same effect on most Americans.

It is worth noting that in a MOUT (millitary operations on urban terrain) engagement in the middle east, it is possible that a civilian bystander--especially in his own home--would be more offended by being pushed around by a woman than a man.

It is stupid to let women in the military. Women are more important because they build the population and are better mothers at taking care of children. Why do you think women and children are first instead of men, they are important. Why do you think women aren't allowed in any U.S. Special Forces, because women can't keep up, I can't even keep up (even though i'm a man). Women are vital for bringing life. Men are evolved to be better and stronger than women. If women want to join, they must do the same number of requirements as the men. Nothing less than the men.

This is just my opinion, and my ideals. You want to fight. Will take take it out back.

I just came across this, and I have to say, that makes you sound pretty stupid.

There should be one physical and mental standard for both men and women. Anyone who can pass that should be allowed in combat. Give drugs (mmmmmmmmmmmm sweet drugs) to shut down procreation abilities and send'em out to fight.

I just came across this, and I have to say, that makes you sound pretty stupid.

first, an amusing side note.... I happened to be looking at the forum and the Thread Title "Women in Combat" with the poster listed as "Tree Hugging Lesbians" was just too amusing a dichotomy to not mention.

The main issue the US military has always had with women in combat roles was first of all traditional male (and female) attitudes. However, over the years that has changed.

Other concerns have included the special medical needs for women (which have dropped away as it became clear that wasn't a big issue like they thought), and the fear that morale would be a problem for men if women became casualties. Time will tell about the last one.

Arguements that women aren't up to it physically aren't carrying much weight now though. Women who are athletic (former HS athletes for example) perform better than men who were not High School athletes. Although the average man is stronger than the average woman, the average woman athlete is stronger than the average man. Just as the average male athlete is stronger than the average man. So the "women are the weaker sex" arguement is losing ground.

I have heard women on average have more stamina and better dexterity than men, who generally are stronger.

So what are the arguements for keeping women out of a direct combat role> And how much longer will those arguements be creditable>

You have to admit when you place the average trained male squaddie against the average trained female squaddie, who's going to win? 99 times out a hundred it's going to be the man, simply because of sheer brute strength ...
I think this could be tested with a simple paintball match... I wonder if it's been done?

What we need to do is have a civil war, with the women all on one side, and the men all on another side, and get rid of all these feministic warfare rules (well, the women can keep em if they want to), about treatment of prisoners and the like. That would clarify things greatly. It might even reverse the downward population spiral in the US too.

I was e-mailed an article for my subscribition to Military.com. Yhis article is about women in Combat. Take a look at it. URL: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_women_051905,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl