NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This is one of those women I would hate to have ticked off at me! :D


Sportswomen to Honor Army Wrestler (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,89791,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl)


Army News Service | Tim Hipps | March 02, 2006
Alexandria, VA. - Sgt. Iris Smith, who won the gold medal in the women’s 158.5-pound freestyle division of the 2005 World Wrestling Championships in Budapest Hungary, will receive an award for her accomplishments from the Sportswomen of Colorado on March 12 in Denver.

Stationed at Fort Carson, Colo., Smith is the only American to win a gold in the tournament and she became just the fourth U.S. woman wrestler to win a world crown, joining Tricia Saunders, Kristie Marano and Sandra Bacher.

To reach the championship match, Smith posted victories over Bulgaria’s Stanka Zlateva, Poland’s Angnieska Wieczczek and Germany’s Anita Schaetzle. The final match pitted Smith against five-time world champion Kyoko Hamaguchi of Japan who she defeated 3-1, 1-1 and 1-0 which gave her the crown.

Smith has competed twice in the World Championships. The first was in 2000 when she placed seventh. She also made Team USA’s roster for the 2001 World Championships but missed the tourney to attend Army basic training.

Hailing from Albany, Ga., Smith qualified for the U.S. World Team by winning the World Team Trials in June at Ames, Iowa, where she defeated Ali Bernard of New Ulm, Minn., in the championship series.

Smith won her fourth national championship in April at Las Vegas, where she pinned Bernard in the second period of their bout. In May, Smith won a bronze medal in the 2005 World Cup at Clermont-Ferrand, France, where she lost only to Hamaguchi.

Founded in 1974 by the YWCA of Metropolitan Denver, Sportswomen of Colorado claims to be the first community-based organization in the nation to solely honor female athletes, celebrate their achievements, and recognize those who have improved sports for girls and women.

I had something else to say...but eh.
Kudos to her, and her women's title.

I had something else to say...but eh.
Tell us! Tell us!! :p

.....man I am going to get shyt for this.


I am not impressed with her ability as it is slanted.

If we are supposed to pressume her to be an impressive combatant and a man's equal then why are there a Women's and Men's division?

Make the competition co-ed and have her medal in it then....that would impress me.

But the fact is...not possible.

In most sports women can not, I repeat CAN NOT compete with men.

And in a sport that is mock combat they are little more then victims.

I have been an assistant in instructing CQC, and self defense. The one thing all the gentleman above me have said....you can never teach a woman to be superior to a man.
A woman of equal training and skill will not be able to compete against her male counterpart----ever.

I have seen this to be case in casual encounters with trained females who believed they could hold their own, and I have seen it in sparring against women who were supposedly more qualified then I .

Basically, yes in the working wolrd, mentally, women can indeed do anything men can, physically...no they cant.

I just dont like the idea that people suppose they can conmpete pysically.

Anyway that's my two cents.

You may begin throwing rotten fruit and vegatables.

.....man I am going to get shyt for this.


I am not impressed with her ability as it is slanted.

If we are supposed to pressume her to be an impressive combatant and a man's equal then why are there a Women's and Men's division?

Make the competition co-ed and have her medal in it then....that would impress me.

But the fact is...not possible.

In most sports women can not, I repeat CAN NOT compete with men.

And in a sport that is mock combat they are little more then victims.

I have been an assistant in instructing CQC, and self defense. The one thing all the gentleman above me have said....you can never teach a woman to be superior to a man.
A woman of equal training and skill will not be able to compete against her male counterpart----ever.

I have seen this to be case in casual encounters with trained females who believed they could hold their own, and I have seen it in sparring against women who were supposedly more qualified then I .

Basically, yes in the working wolrd, mentally, women can indeed do anything men can, physically...no they cant.

I just dont like the idea that people suppose they can conmpete pysically.

Anyway that's my two cents.

You may begin throwing rotten fruit and vegatables.

Pfft so much anecdotal “evidence” :rolleyes:

Sorry bub my personal experience contradicts that probably made up evidence ... try again next time with some proof rather then loaded opinions

I agree with the poster who said that sports shouldn't have men/women divisions, or at least, there should be one where there are both men and women.

I disagree, however, that women will always be beaten by an equal. There is no proof that this is the case, and I believe that it's more the case that women won't bother to fight as much as men do. There will therefore be more men with better fighting capabilities than women. That doesn't change that a woman could beat you.

In most sports women can not, I repeat CAN NOT compete with men.

Really?

http://www.adn.com/sports/high_school/story/7418784p-7330454c.html

In most sports women can not, I repeat CAN NOT compete with men.
Ah, a backwater hillbilly claiming that women are worthless. Such a loony had to come here :rolleyes:

Actually, in very most sports women would be very well able to compete with men! The only exceptions would be sports where only physical strength is important and nothing else, like wrestling.
But with *all* other sports, women would be easily able to compete with men! There's absolute *no* good reason for a separation in soccer, biathlon, golf etc.! :sniper:

A woman of equal training and skill will not be able to compete against her male counterpart----ever.

Wrong, you are probably assuming that the woman would be proportionally smaller than her male opponant as most woman are smaller than men BUT if you place an equally trained man and woman side by side that are the same height and general build it will be a toss up. When the two people are basically the same physical size than it is anyones game.
If some guy walked up and was 5'5" and 165 like me I would kick his ass with no problem in several sports.
Of course an average 5'5" woman would most likely lose to an average 6' man.
It seems to me that you are disregarding woman all together(in the physical competition). I don't know if you really are but the way you posted but makes it seem that way.

Wrong, you are probably assuming that the woman would be proportionally smaller than her male opponant as most woman are smaller than men BUT if you place an equally trained man and woman side by side that are the same height and general build it will be a toss up. When the two people are basically the same physical size than it is anyones game.
If some guy walked up and was 5'5" and 165 like me I would kick his ass with no problem in several sports.
Of course an average 5'5" woman would most likely lose to an average 6' man.
It seems to me that you are disregarding woman all together(in the physical competition). I don't know if you really are but the way you posted but makes it seem that way.
In addition (and I wish some people would get this through their thick skulls), some martial arts do NOT factor in strength or size in at all, such as Aikido, the Bone martial arts or Wing Chun or even the Krav Maga. Others do their best to minimise it. So size can be sidetracked altogether, or reduced to an insignificant factor. Thus even in situations where the two are equally trained and of differing sizes, being bigger will not guarantee a victory.

And Skibereen, please, do yourself a favour and invest in some brain cells.

Cutting through the bullshit on both sides, it's clear that Skibereen has a point when it comes to hand to hand combat. Save for the most extremely trained individuals, the larger, stronger person, regardless of gender, has an advantage in close combat, and men are, statistically, larger and stronger than women.

However, all of that said, there remains no good argument for keeping women out of combat roles in the military. Hand to hand combat is rare in modern warfare, and likely to become rarer as cetain new tech comes on line, such as helmet mounted sensory enhancers. Also, while men tend to have greater musculature, women tend towards faster reaction speeds, important on our electronic battlefields.

I suppose if you must you could forbid women in the infantry. But there is no good reason to keep them from being combat pilots, tankers, artillerists, seamen, submariners or any of the other thousand and ten duties needed by a modern army.

I would just say "can you meet the physical and educational requirements of a recruit?" If the answer is yes, then fuck gender - and sexual proclivity too, while your at it.

Yeah, let women become infantry if they want to.

Cutting through the bullshit on both sides, it's clear that Skibereen has a point when it comes to hand to hand combat. Save for the most extremely trained individuals, the larger, stronger person, regardless of gender, has an advantage in close combat, and men are, statistically, larger and stronger than women.
No, some men are larger and stronger that most women. Your sweeping generalisation ignores those who it doesn't apply to.

Cutting through the bullshit on both sides, it's clear that Skibereen has a point when it comes to hand to hand combat. Save for the most extremely trained individuals, the larger, stronger person, regardless of gender, has an advantage in close combat, and men are, statistically, larger and stronger than women..
Indeed, although not necessarily extremely trained. Just very well trained. And again, it would depend on the martial art (or mix of these) that the person practises, and how well the art itself is suited to them.

No, some men are larger and stronger that most women. Your sweeping generalisation ignores those who it doesn't apply to.


Nadkor, please go to your bookshelf and look up the word "statistically". Then post something that doesn't make you sound stupid.

Nadkor, please go to your bookshelf and look up the word "statistically". Then post something that doesn't make you sound stupid.
Statistics rarely give the whole picture.

The fact that statistically men may be larger and stronger doesn't change the fact that there are exceptions. To apply a single rule across an entire group of people on the basis of statistics would be foolhardy, which is why I put very little stock by them.

And, if you want to carry on this line about stupidity, I suggest you go to your bookshelf and look up the difference between "your" and "you're".

And please quit with the emboldening of people's usernames, not only is it annoying, their name is already in the quote box.

If you wish. I've tended to do that with names as a courtesy, but if you find it annoying - oh and thanks for calling me on the you're.

As for the meat of your post - of course, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, DUMBASS! THAT'S WHY I USED THE DAMN TERM!

Did I miss something? How much hand-to-hand fighting actually occurs in combat?

Cutting through the bullshit on both sides, it's clear that Skibereen has a point when it comes to hand to hand combat. Save for the most extremely trained individuals, the larger, stronger person, regardless of gender, has an advantage in close combat, and men are, statistically, larger and stronger than women.

However, all of that said, there remains no good argument for keeping women out of combat roles in the military. Hand to hand combat is rare in modern warfare, and likely to become rarer as cetain new tech comes on line, such as helmet mounted sensory enhancers. Also, while men tend to have greater musculature, women tend towards faster reaction speeds, important on our electronic battlefields.

I suppose if you must you could forbid women in the infantry. But there is no good reason to keep them from being combat pilots, tankers, artillerists, seamen, submariners or any of the other thousand and ten duties needed by a modern army.

I would just say "can you meet the physical and educational requirements of a recruit?" If the answer is yes, then fuck gender - and sexual proclivity too, while your at it.
*kisses Dododecapod's cheek* :fluffle:
Thank you! Isn't logic fun!

Pfft so much anecdotal “evidence” :rolleyes:

Sorry bub my personal experience contradicts that probably made up evidence ... try again next time with some proof rather then loaded opinions
I expected logic and reason.
Since plenty of people here actually KNOW me, please spare me the feable and knock kneed sidewise accusation.
The fact you have slapped around by women only explains why you didnt have the intestinal fortitude to just use the word 'liar'.

Come back when you have a pair.

I agree with the poster who said that sports shouldn't have men/women divisions, or at least, there should be one where there are both men and women.

I disagree, however, that women will always be beaten by an equal. There is no proof that this is the case, and I believe that it's more the case that women won't bother to fight as much as men do. There will therefore be more men with better fighting capabilities than women. That doesn't change that a woman could beat you.
I didnt say women would be beaten in all sports by an male of equal training and skill--I said in sports that are essentially mock combat.
Martial Arts, Fencing, Wrestling, Boxing, so forth and so on.

Fast twitch reflexes, muscle and bone density are all to the male advantage--medical fact. So it is indeed proven.

Really?

http://www.adn.com/sports/high_school/story/7418784p-7330454c.html
"WRESTLING: Hutchison's state title against the boys at 103 pounds is unprecedented."
Really.

Ah, a backwater hillbilly claiming that women are worthless. Such a loony had to come here :rolleyes:

Actually, in very most sports women would be very well able to compete with men! The only exceptions would be sports where only physical strength is important and nothing else, like wrestling.
But with *all* other sports, women would be easily able to compete with men! There's absolute *no* good reason for a separation in soccer, biathlon, golf etc.! :sniper:
A simple minded twit throwing insults and quoting out of context.
Mock Combat Sports--Soccer, Biathalon, Golf are hardly those things.
Try again dim wit.

I didnt say women would be beaten in all sports by an male of equal training and skill--I said in sports that are essentially mock combat.
Martial Arts, Fencing, Wrestling, Boxing, so forth and so on.

Fast twitch reflexes, muscle and bone density are all to the male advantage--medical fact. So it is indeed proven.
No, some martial arts may be mock combat. The vast majority of real ones are highly effective fighting techniques. A well-trained woman can outdo a man, even if he is equally well-trained, depending on the martial art. Wing chun, Krav Maga and Aikido minimise (or even oust) the role of strength.

Wrong, you are probably assuming that the woman would be proportionally smaller than her male opponant as most woman are smaller than men BUT if you place an equally trained man and woman side by side that are the same height and general build it will be a toss up. When the two people are basically the same physical size than it is anyones game.
If some guy walked up and was 5'5" and 165 like me I would kick his ass with no problem in several sports.
Of course an average 5'5" woman would most likely lose to an average 6' man.
It seems to me that you are disregarding woman all together(in the physical competition). I don't know if you really are but the way you posted but makes it seem that way.
Wrong. Medically speaking men have muscles which are more dense and bones which are more dense.
So a women the smae weight and height of a man will be weaker, and more prone to injury.
I disregard them in the context of physical competition which mocks combat.
I have seen women perfom very well in full contact tackle football, rugby, hockey.
Those are not combat sports--they are just CONTACT. My opinion returns to my belief women do not belong in an infantry combat role.

Wrong. Medically speaking men have muscles which are more dense and bones which are more dense.

Are we speaking of men and women of the same height and weight and muscle composition, or the average man and woman?

In addition (and I wish some people would get this through their thick skulls), some martial arts do NOT factor in strength or size in at all, such as Aikido, the Bone martial arts or Wing Chun or even the Krav Maga. Others do their best to minimise it. So size can be sidetracked altogether, or reduced to an insignificant factor. Thus even in situations where the two are equally trained and of differing sizes, being bigger will not guarantee a victory.

And Skibereen, please, do yourself a favour and invest in some brain cells.
I have studied Wing Chin for over seven years.
I am trained Krav Maga, Muay Thai Kick Boxing, French Savate, Pencak Silat, and I been a Boxer since I was fifteen years old.
I have assisted in seminars for both federal and local law enforcment agencies.
I have trained with instructors from three of our military branches, in the capacity of information exchange---as a paid speaker.
You have obviously never studied any Martial Art seriously or served in the Military or Law Enforcement.

Do your self a favor dont speak on something you dont have resume for, ok, thanks.

I have studied Wing Chin for over seven years.
I am trained Krav Maga, Muay Thai Kick Boxing, French Savate, Pencak Silat, and I been a Boxer since I was fifteen years old.
I have assisted in seminars for both federal and local law enforcment agencies.
I have trained with instructors from three of our military branches, in the capacity of information exchange---as a paid speaker.
You have obviously never studied any Martial Art seriously or served in the Military or Law Enforcement.

Do your self a favor dont speak on something you dont have resume for, ok, thanks.
Actually I have done Wing Chun and Aikido. In any case, you are a biased idiot. There is no point in bothering with you. Do us a favour, and stop speaking altogether.

Cutting through the bullshit on both sides, it's clear that Skibereen has a point when it comes to hand to hand combat. Save for the most extremely trained individuals, the larger, stronger person, regardless of gender, has an advantage in close combat, and men are, statistically, larger and stronger than women.

However, all of that said, there remains no good argument for keeping women out of combat roles in the military. Hand to hand combat is rare in modern warfare, and likely to become rarer as cetain new tech comes on line, such as helmet mounted sensory enhancers. Also, while men tend to have greater musculature, women tend towards faster reaction speeds, important on our electronic battlefields.

I suppose if you must you could forbid women in the infantry. But there is no good reason to keep them from being combat pilots, tankers, artillerists, seamen, submariners or any of the other thousand and ten duties needed by a modern army.

I would just say "can you meet the physical and educational requirements of a recruit?" If the answer is yes, then fuck gender - and sexual proclivity too, while your at it.

Thank you.
However, have you ever gone on a full pack run?
I dont want someone backing me up who meets the minimum requirements....I dont want to be forced to carry someone out because they simply fail.
CQC is happening right now.
A pack, a rifle, go--full speed, full steam, two, three, ten hours until you engage---you then need to act as if all that energy is still right in reserve.
Strength, power and endurance.
Nancy isnt going to be able to pull her weight on mortar team, she isnt going to be able to pull weight on any number of crew served weapons.

And when you kick a door down to sweep and clear....excuse when you kick the door down for her.

And she gets jumped on.....are certain you wont be getting shot with her rifle in the next ambush?

Actually I have done Wing Chun and Aikido. In any case, you are a biased idiot. There is no point in bothering with you. Do us a favour, and stop speaking altogether.
What's your Sifu's lineage?
I have done many things, it doesnt make me an expert. I have cooked, that doesnt make me a chef.

You spoke on this topic like you had credentials, please back your words up.

How many years have you been at it?

What is the common phrase used to refer to two people engaged in Wing Chun sparing match. Used at every convention, tournament, and seminar I have ever been to, and used by GM Cheung and Guru Dan.

What are 20 of the 108 wooden dummy movements?
Feck it, five?

In what order did Yip Man suggest a new student train the forms and weapons ?

How did that differ from those who came before him?

Anything?

Where does the phrase "Empty Jacket" come from?


Like I said dont comment on something you dont have resume for.

However, all of that said, there remains no good argument for keeping women out of combat roles in the military. Hand to hand combat is rare in modern warfare, and likely to become rarer as cetain new tech comes on line, such as helmet mounted sensory enhancers. Also, while men tend to have greater musculature, women tend towards faster reaction speeds, important on our electronic battlefields.

I suppose if you must you could forbid women in the infantry. But there is no good reason to keep them from being combat pilots, tankers, artillerists, seamen, submariners or any of the other thousand and ten duties needed by a modern army.

I would just say "can you meet the physical and educational requirements of a recruit?" If the answer is yes, then fuck gender - and sexual proclivity too, while your at it.
Hand to Hand combat is not rare. Your understanding of it is simply wrong.
CQC is a physical event even if you are shooting at each other.
But to your point, other roles outside of ground level front line combat:
Women exceed men's cpapabilities in many areas, one very important and over looked one is multitasking, then execute multiple lines of thought at once in a far more effeicient manner then men(on the average for you people who are so fecking up tight about that). Making them good pilots, good analysts, good at any number of highly specialized jobs that need to be done.

I do not think women do not belong in the military---I think they are an asset in some places and a distinct liability in others.

Arty is good, intelligence is an excellent field for women(I know two who are currently deployed in the field for MI)

But as Grunts, no, they will never be as capable as men.

snip
But as Grunts, no, they will never be as capable as men.


Some will ... not the "average" maybe but there are some that will supremly qualify for the position ... they should be allowed

Doesn't sound like this has sweet fuck all to do with the military.

Women are always going to have problems competing physically with men. You’d have to be blind to not admit that. Only in equestrian events can women compete equally with men and then only because the horse does all the work (although some headstrong horses are harder for the smaller equestrians to control). Marathon builds are useless in the military, when you’ve just been handed a pack and kit that might weigh over two hundred pounds. You have to have some upper body strength. A gymnast would be fine, unless it’s one of those malnourished stick girls who starve themselves to compete and have bones that snap like twigs (they really need more regulation for women’s gymnastics).

Yes an extremely fit woman, who is a fitness fanatic, could beat a short male couch potato, but then that short male couch potato isn’t fit to become a soldier either. From my experience, there are always going to be a few women out there who become good soldiers, but most lack the muscle mass for the job. The male build is just better for carrying heavy loads, like packs or fireman carrying comrades. I think if a woman can meet the physical standard then fine. Just don’t water the standards down, like I’ve seen in too many occasions, to validate political recruitment policies. When it comes to the combat arms, I just don’t want to have any stupid or weak people anywhere near me. It’s not a good thing. I don’t care about race, gender, or whatever in the military, just about results. I have seen a few good female Infantry soldiers but they are few and far between. Physically, the very exceptional ones stack up against an average male soldier fairly well, but that's about as good as they get.

I actually got in trouble for telling a female clerk in the Infantry that she was a disgrace for being grossly overweight, after she complained about having to do physical training. If you’re a clerk attached to an infantry unit and could be deployed in a field headquarters then you’d better be fit. If you can’t fill a sandbag for your HQ or march 100 meters without falling out from exhaustion, then you’re not just useless you’re a liability. In time of war those same HQ’s are soft targets for the enemy and the people in them need to have some standard of fitness (just ask logistics drivers in Iraq these days if they’re in a situation where they could be involved in fighting).

I was 6’2” and 190lbs when I went to basic training and then on to Battle School, and I found Infantry training hard as hell. Trust me, if I was 5’7” and 130lbs you’d have had to prod me with a bayonet to join the Infantry.

The Bruce

If I may share a little information from my own martial art, I must say that women can be very capable at kickboxing. A man has ovious advantages that they start with stronger muscles, and a body obtimised for raw power. A woman will never reach the same raw power a man can, due to the structure of the body. However with such moves as the spinning back kick (as you may know the most powerful move in the art), they have the advantage that most women are lighter on their feet than men, and have more of a tenancy towards a gymnast's body. As far as I know the biology makes the same thing happen, a man will never as quite as much gymnastic ability that a woman can reach. Again a matter of bone structure etc. Sure I can lay out most of the women at my dojo in a slugging match, but some of them are just so good at doing 'the twisty thing you do' that I would lose if that was all we were doing. There are advantages and disadvantages. One thing to note, there is an eight year old girl at my dojo, been kickboxing for most of her life. Wouldn't want to be the man who tries to jump her in a few years. She will be easily fit enough to go through basic, much weaker people join and are pulled up to shape.

Thank you.
However, have you ever gone on a full pack run?
I dont want someone backing me up who meets the minimum requirements....I dont want to be forced to carry someone out because they simply fail.
CQC is happening right now.
A pack, a rifle, go--full speed, full steam, two, three, ten hours until you engage---you then need to act as if all that energy is still right in reserve.
Strength, power and endurance.
Nancy isnt going to be able to pull her weight on mortar team, she isnt going to be able to pull weight on any number of crew served weapons.

And when you kick a door down to sweep and clear....excuse when you kick the door down for her.

And she gets jumped on.....are certain you wont be getting shot with her rifle in the next ambush?

Skibereen, I spent eight good years in the USMC. I know full pack exercises quite well, thank you.

I also know that while women have, on average, less musculature and size, those traits have exactly NOTHING to do with endurance. I was the smallest guy in my squad, barely squeaked over the height requirement, but I was also one of the guys who was LEAST inconvenienced by a good long run with full gear.

If you're worried about a woman who barely makes it in not being able to pull their weight, well, you'd also have to worry about me. And I was a damn good marine.

The only thing we have to do is ensure that the standards aren't relaxed. You gotta have the height and the education. If you have that, basic takes care of the rest.