NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, after reading through the 'don't ask, don't tell' thread, I decided to open up another post in regards to women in the military.

In the CF, women are allowed in all trades, no restrictions. We have women infanteers, women armoured troopers, women gunners in our artillery units (Captain Nichola Goddard was seriving as a forward observation observer out of a hatch on a LAV calling in arty fire when she was killed by an RPG) and have no problems with it.

I was wondering, what are your opinions on having women in the military?

Of course women should be able to join the military

why shouldn't they be able too?

Having served, I personally have no problem. One thing. If women are to serve in combat arms, they need to pass the same PT standards as men. It's more than possible for women to do so (American Military PT standards for women are a joke). I also think it's very necessary if they are put in those roles.

Why shouldn't they?
I strongly object to all things military, but I believe if men are legally allowed to join that, then women definitely should be allowed, too.

Well, after reading through the 'don't ask, don't tell' thread, I decided to open up another post in regards to women in the military.

In the CF, women are allowed in all trades, no restrictions. We have women infanteers, women armoured troopers, women gunners in our artillery units (Captain Nichola Goddard was seriving as a forward observation observer out of a hatch on a LAV calling in arty fire when she was killed by an RPG) and have no problems with it.

I was wondering, what are your opinions on having women in the military?
It depresses me to no end that such topics are even still up for discussion these days. It is so lame that we still actually have to ask whether femaleness disqualifies a person from various roles in life.

Snaft, I agree with you on that. The CF has different standards, and the women's standards are like half that of a mans. I think it's pretty unanimous that the dual standards are BS.

Snaft, I agree with you on that. The CF has different standards, and the women's standards are like half that of a mans. I think it's pretty unanimous that the dual standards are BS.

It makes more sense for the standards to be job dependant instead of gender dependant.

Women should be able to serve their country in the military, in whatever service they wish as long as they can obviously pass the standard medical tests and training etc.

However, I think I might have to make an expection for women serving on submarines. Putting women into a submarine which is invariably going to be male dominated, at sea for a long time, where sexual tensions are high and space is at a premium, I think might not be a good idea. They would be much more susceptible to sexual abuse in such an environment I believe and it makes things complicated if they get pregnant whilst on board.

What does everyone else think?

I work with women everyday in the Navy and respect them for working hard in the military.

I fully support women in the military, in all aspects of it. I think it would greatly cut down the incidences of rape and frequenting underage prostitutes that generally accompanies all-male armies.

If they want to and can do the job, then have at it I say.

There was a bit of controversy in Canada when women started entering the military in combat positions.

Oddly enough, that controversy just faded away rather quickly. Now it's really no big deal, and I have not heard a single negative comment about women in the armed forces in oh...ten years?

So...meh.

Snaft, not job dependent, one standard for all trades. Any individual can be deployed overseas ( including plumbing/heating techs, refrigeration techs, clerks, etc) and any one of them can see combat. My section commander on basic was a clerk, he was hitching a ride on a fuel truck as part of a fuel convoy in the former yugoslav, were ambushed by croatians, he had to yank out the spanish driver who had frozen for a moment, and they spent four hours holed up in the back of a dutch APC. If he wasn't physically fit, he may not have been able to as effectively pull out said driver, or move fast enough himself to the APC, and that could end very badly with bullets flying at you and you're sitting in front of a tank holding thousands fo liters of combustible fuel.

As for submarines, that was the CF policy at first, allowed in all jobs except subs. That was changed after not too long, good thing too, I haven't heard about anything bad, but then again Canada's fleet of functional subs is rather limited...

However, I think I might have to make an expection for women serving on submarines. Putting women into a submarine which is invariably going to be male dominated, at sea for a long time, where sexual tensions are high and space is at a premium, I think might not be a good idea. They would be much more susceptible to sexual abuse in such an environment I believe and it makes things complicated if they get pregnant whilst on board.

What does everyone else think?
If the problem with women serving in subs is that men might abuse them, don't you think it would be more reasonable to exclude MEN from subs? I mean, why punish women if women are the victims?

If men are so out of control that they can't refrain from abusing their fellow soldiers, then they absolutely should not be allowed to control massive pieces of military equipment. I would certainly prefer to have nuclear sub run by individuals who are capable of controlling themselves, as opposed to having them run by creeps who can't refrain from abusing or raping female coworkers.

Personally, I have a higher opinion of men than all that. I think men are more than capable of behaving themselves and controlling their behavior. I think individuals who lack self-control should be expelled from the service immediately, as they are a danger to themselves and those around them. Instead of excluding women from serving in certain contexts, effort should be redirected to remove the individuals who are out of control and abusing their fellow servicemen and servicewomen.

Having spent 4 years in the US Army, I'm very much in favor of women being unrestricted in however they want to serve. However, I will echo the call for women having to pass the same PT standards as men (for combat arms, anyway). I've met a number of women who would be quite capable of being combat arms, and I've met a number of men who were combat arms but really shouldn't have been.

Damn straight Bottle.

Quite frankly, anyone who sexually harasses/assaults/rapes an individual in the armed forces has no business wearing a uniform, or being anywhere other than a prison. Anyone who witnesses, or knows of, such actions being committed and does not take action likewise has no business wearing a uniform, though I'm willing to ease up on the prison part for them.

If the problem with women serving in subs is that men might abuse them, don't you think it would be more reasonable to exclude MEN from subs? I mean, why punish women if women are the victims?

If men are so out of control that they can't refrain from abusing their fellow soldiers, then they absolutely should not be allowed to control massive pieces of military equipment. I would certainly prefer to have nuclear sub run by individuals who are capable of controlling themselves, as opposed to having them run by creeps who can't refrain from abusing or raping female coworkers.

Personally, I have a higher opinion of men than all that. I think men are more than capable of behaving themselves and controlling their behavior. I think individuals who lack self-control should be expelled from the service immediately, as they are a danger to themselves and those around them. Instead of excluding women from serving in certain contexts, effort should be redirected to remove the individuals who are out of control and abusing their fellow servicemen and servicewomen.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to punish women by not letting them serve on submarines. But the work environment in modern submarines is quite different from anything else. The crew is totally isolated for lengthy periods of time, especially when it's an SSBN, which is supposed to keep itself hidden. Sexual tension gets very high during cruises, with pornography under every bunk. I'm not saying all male submariners are sexual predators, but in that environment they are much more likely to develop. Adding women into the equation doesn't help too much I feel.

I say that women should definitly be allowed into the armed section of the military, provided they pass the same tests as men have to, mental and physical. I can make an exception with the medical tests, obviously :P

Frankly, the military is one place where the whole 'Women need to be seen as equals but treated as inferiors when it comes to some things' bullshit needs to not be seen.
I know, a lot of women are physically incapable of being as strong as many men. But you know what? Too bad. I want to serve in the military, but I cant. 20/200 vision and heart problems mean that the closest thing to a military job I can get would be working at Ratheon.

Absolutely. I have already painstakingly dismantled any argument to the contrary and I'm not going to repeat it unless someone asks. As long as they pass the tests. As Bottle has said, punish the culprits.

They can do it just as well as most men.

I do agree they should have the same PT requirements. Otherwise they should do desk jobs or technical jobs.

BTW, there are a lot of women in Israel army.

Snaft, not job dependent, one standard for all trades. Any individual can be deployed overseas ( including plumbing/heating techs, refrigeration techs, clerks, etc) and any one of them can see combat. My section commander on basic was a clerk, he was hitching a ride on a fuel truck as part of a fuel convoy in the former yugoslav, were ambushed by croatians, he had to yank out the spanish driver who had frozen for a moment, and they spent four hours holed up in the back of a dutch APC. If he wasn't physically fit, he may not have been able to as effectively pull out said driver, or move fast enough himself to the APC, and that could end very badly with bullets flying at you and you're sitting in front of a tank holding thousands fo liters of combustible fuel.

As for submarines, that was the CF policy at first, allowed in all jobs except subs. That was changed after not too long, good thing too, I haven't heard about anything bad, but then again Canada's fleet of functional subs is rather limited...

I'm not saying the standards should be set exceptionally low for one job vs another. What I am saying is certain jobs require a higher standard of fitness. Just like how the Special Forces are held to different standards. I believe the male minimum for push-ups when I left was 25 (for my age bracket). That's entirely too low for a firefighter, for example, who needs to be able to repeatedly lift very heavy things. One could argue that the training that's required to be a firefighter would make up the difference, but it might not. If it doesn't, it's more difficult for a soldiers superiors to instate a remedial PT program.

If the problem with women serving in subs is that men might abuse them, don't you think it would be more reasonable to exclude MEN from subs? I mean, why punish women if women are the victims?

If men are so out of control that they can't refrain from abusing their fellow soldiers, then they absolutely should not be allowed to control massive pieces of military equipment. I would certainly prefer to have nuclear sub run by individuals who are capable of controlling themselves, as opposed to having them run by creeps who can't refrain from abusing or raping female coworkers.

Personally, I have a higher opinion of men than all that. I think men are more than capable of behaving themselves and controlling their behavior. I think individuals who lack self-control should be expelled from the service immediately, as they are a danger to themselves and those around them. Instead of excluding women from serving in certain contexts, effort should be redirected to remove the individuals who are out of control and abusing their fellow servicemen and servicewomen.


Lol, you have no idea how men work at all.

Most of the times, its sex who keeps a man sane. Without even being able to jack off alone since you have like no time alone in a sub, I can see a bunch of gungho marines geting extremely horn in a sub and gang raping even the most ugly of women.

Most of the times, its sex who keeps a man sane. Without even being able to jack off alone since you have like no time alone in a sub, I can see a bunch of gungho marines geting extremely horn in a sub and gang raping even the most ugly of women.

Agreed. This is the crux of my argument. The animal desire for sex can sometimes overwhelming for men and women in a normal environment. Stick them in a cramped submarine and even the most controlled men can lose their cool.

Well, after reading through the 'don't ask, don't tell' thread, I decided to open up another post in regards to women in the military.

In the CF, women are allowed in all trades, no restrictions. We have women infanteers, women armoured troopers, women gunners in our artillery units (Captain Nichola Goddard was seriving as a forward observation observer out of a hatch on a LAV calling in arty fire when she was killed by an RPG) and have no problems with it.

I was wondering, what are your opinions on having women in the military?

I vote yes but apparently you do not have a plain yes vote up there.

I've done almost 6 years in the Canadian Naval Reserve, moving into the full time army after grad and it doesn't bother me in the least. The PT standards should be higher for women, while equal may be too much to ask, the fact that they're women won't save them when they aren't strong enough at the crucial moment. Considering that the majority of the 300+ pound Chiefs we have are men, I'm not too concerned about it though.

Having served, I personally have no problem. One thing. If women are to serve in combat arms, they need to pass the same PT standards as men. It's more than possible for women to do so (American Military PT standards for women are a joke). I also think it's very necessary if they are put in those roles.

I used to say this as well. But upon thinking about it further, it really depends on the standards themselves. Most of the standards are not functional. Instead, they are meant to ensure that the soldier is at a certain level of health and fitness - levels that are based in averages. A woman who is equally fit to a man will generally have more body fat, less muscle strength, and more flexibility (among other things). The point is that they are actually equally physically fit, within their own biological constraints.

Now, if the tests were more functional (something like, "must be able to carry X pounds of equipment for Y minutes at a fast moving pace" or "must be able to do a specific activity for a specific amount of time") - things that would actually directly pertain to the job being done - then the standards would need to be the same.

I used to say this as well. But upon thinking about it further, it really depends on the standards themselves. Most of the standards are not functional. Instead, they are meant to ensure that the soldier is at a certain level of health and fitness - levels that are based in averages. A woman who is equally fit to a man will generally have more body fat, less muscle strength, and more flexibility (among other things). The point is that they are actually equally physically fit, within their own biological constraints.

Now, if the tests were more functional (something like, "must be able to carry X pounds of equipment for Y minutes at a fast moving pace" or "must be able to do a specific activity for a specific amount of time") - things that would actually directly pertain to the job being done - then the standards would need to be the same.

I understand the fitness part of it, but there absolutely needs to be a functional component. It's one of my larger complaints about Army standards (can't speak for other branches). It really doesn't matter if an infantryman can run his 2 mile in eleven minutes if he can't keep up during a road march.

Even from a fitness standpoint I don't think the double standard is fair. The minimum for a female for a two mile run is just under 20 minutes. I can just about walk two miles in 20 minutes. The minimum for men is about 16:30. It's not a fair double standard.

I used to say this as well. But upon thinking about it further, it really depends on the standards themselves. Most of the standards are not functional. Instead, they are meant to ensure that the soldier is at a certain level of health and fitness - levels that are based in averages. A woman who is equally fit to a man will generally have more body fat, less muscle strength, and more flexibility (among other things). The point is that they are actually equally physically fit, within their own biological constraints.

Now, if the tests were more functional (something like, "must be able to carry X pounds of equipment for Y minutes at a fast moving pace" or "must be able to do a specific activity for a specific amount of time") - things that would actually directly pertain to the job being done - then the standards would need to be the same.

Standards vary between countries - however in the UK, the standards do not really look at BMI and body fat ratios - unless you are clinically obese. Hence a tendancy for a fit woman to have a higher body fat ratio than an equally fit man would not mean anything - she has to be very overweight before this is an issue. The strength issue, particulary upper body strength is another matter as even relatively fit women have trouble matching very average males in strength tests..

Many of the standards are based on running and lifting your own body weight, which makes sense if a soldier is reasonably going to be expected to run with full kit on a regular basis and haul themselves up stuff. The main ones that are not based on this are kit-carrying and people carrying exercises - where you are working against your own body weight + your own kit. Different sectiosn of the army have different tests - go for the SAS and they ahve some special tests waiting for you...

In these tests a person should be held to the same standard regardless of their gender or other factor. You can either do the task or you cannot.


Lets see:

Basic Personal Fitness Assessment:
2 mins pressups
2 mins situps
1.5 mile run

All are based on your own body weight and are tests for endurance. Personally I think you have to be pretty unfit to fail this.


Then there is the Combat Fitness test:

A Combat Fitness Test (CFT) is completed over a 5km course and should take no more than 1 hour carrying, 56lb in your bergan, rifle and helmet and wearing combat clothes and boots.

I would say this is very very relevent to a soldier - and should have the same standard regardless of gender or other factors.

5km in one hour, carrying 56lb? That is pretty damn LOW.

I used to work with a lady that would say that she did not date any men that she slept with....

This was while in the Fire Department. I have never had any problems working with the ladies when I was with the PD, EMS or FD. As long as they can do their jobs, so what. They had to pass the same physical agility test that I had to take, and do the same skills during training. After all, how many men are wahsed out of Public Safety academies because they cannot perform up to the standard?

I say that if they can do it, let them.

Vic

5km in one hour, carrying 56lb? That is pretty damn LOW.

I am pretty sure it is not on a running track.

I suspect it is cross country with obscacle courses thrown in.

Remember - this is a minimum fitness requirement for basic army entry. If you're going for the SAS expect something somewhat harsher.

Corneliu, there are two yes options. One in which you've served or are serving in the military, and the other in which you haven't served in the military.

In the UK army women are allowed to join any department except infantry, and tanks. The current reason is that male officers will be less effective when commanding female soldiers in such situations. It would certainly affect my ability in a situation of command.

In the UK army women are allowed to join any department except infantry, and tanks. The current reason is that male officers will be less effective when commanding female soldiers in such situations. It would certainly affect my ability in a situation of command.

One question. How exactly would it affect an officer's ability?

Of course they should be able to serve in the military in any capacity, as long of course they have to pass all the same tests and meet the same standards of their male counterparts. Can't see why anyone could argue with this unless they are afflicted with sexist beliefs.

Well, after reading through the 'don't ask, don't tell' thread, I decided to open up another post in regards to women in the military.

In the CF, women are allowed in all trades, no restrictions. We have women infanteers, women armoured troopers, women gunners in our artillery units (Captain Nichola Goddard was seriving as a forward observation observer out of a hatch on a LAV calling in arty fire when she was killed by an RPG) and have no problems with it.

I was wondering, what are your opinions on having women in the military?

women should be allowed to serve in the capacity they are able. that means, no modifying training courses for women who want to see combat.

If they can do the job, then by all means they should.

The military in the U.S. has different standards for men and women. Women are treated exactly as that. Men try to hide their boners while running game on the women around them. This becomes a liability at war time. If you've ever worked in a same sex atmosphere, you understand that more concise and larger quantity of work gets done.

I have no problem with women serving as long as they understand the risks. I think the men serving should have zero contact as far as dating and sexual relations go concerning females serving. Men have an inate responsibility to protect women....even bigger liabilty during war time.

I am pretty sure it is not on a running track.

I suspect it is cross country with obscacle courses thrown in.

Remember - this is a minimum fitness requirement for basic army entry. If you're going for the SAS expect something somewhat harsher.

Yeah...The SAS is the elite...Dunno the American equavalent, but basically like the super trooper lol...I think the basics to even be contemplated to enter the SAS is to:

Solitary walk 100 miles with only a fishing hook, some thread and a small canteen on water in under 10 days, in the Welsh highlands.

Some massive run up a Welsh mountain and down again with a Bergen 2x youre bodyweight in 4 hours (I think its a vertical 2 mile hill)

25 pull ups in under 5 minutes
70 sit ups and press ups in under 5 minutes.

If you gain entry then youre tested in every terrain known to man -
Surving for 3 weeks in the Arctic circle, while being hunted by current SAS troops.
Surviving 3 weeks in the Amazon, while being tracked by heat detecting equipment, SAS troops and Gurkhas and with only a rifle each and 10 bullets.
Surving 3 weeks in the desert while being tracked by Gurkhas and SAS troops and people used to living in the desert, and helicopters.

Pretty tough lol...It must be kinda fun to try though. If youre wondering in the Welsh mountain thing why the Bergen is 2x the persons bodyweight, thats to see if they would be able to carry a comrade in a battle situation. Of course this is only the physical side. The mental side is also extremely strenous. I do believe they are interrogated for 72 hours without sleep or food, and drugged water. Those who pass that test are the ones who through through everything - violence, humilition good cop bad cop etc, are the ones who only ever give their serial number, rank, name and DOB.

I remember with the Cadets when we got caught in our final ex we were tortured mentally aswell. But with German opera. If you liked it, it was in Spanish. If you liked that, it was in Italian, and after that you were forced to listen to the Drill Seargeant play and sing The Beatles on his guitar :) That was true torture!

Unlike the other Branches of the British military the British army segregates women and men…

Now put your pitchforks down the reason for this was that so many women where injuring themselves trying to keep up with men and I’ve seen this myself during the first physical interview (the only time I’ve competed with women) of course odds are should it come to flexibility I wouldn’t have a chance against them but that doesn’t come up much

Of course there is also the fact that if you spend allot of time working with your opposite sex you will want to screw them regardless this intensifies when your in the dessert heat feeling homesick and scared (course soldiers shacking up still happens but the military wants to keep this as low as possible)

The current reason is that male officers will be less effective when commanding female soldiers in such situations.

actually its the fact that not enough women would qualify for lets say loaders to actually form any kind of independent regiment

Though if memory serves me well we did have women’s infantry though I don’t know if it still exists

women should be allowed to serve in the capacity they are able. that means, no modifying training courses for women who want to see combat.

If they can do the job, then by all means they should.

qf one-handed typing truth

Yeah...The SAS is the elite...Dunno the American equavalent, but basically like the super trooper lol...I think the basics to even be contemplated to enter the SAS is to:

Solitary walk 100 miles with only a fishing hook, some thread and a small canteen on water in under 10 days, in the Welsh highlands.

Some massive run up a Welsh mountain and down again with a Bergen 2x youre bodyweight in 4 hours (I think its a vertical 2 mile hill)

25 pull ups in under 5 minutes
70 sit ups and press ups in under 5 minutes.

If you gain entry then youre tested in every terrain known to man -
Surving for 3 weeks in the Arctic circle, while being hunted by current SAS troops.
Surviving 3 weeks in the Amazon, while being tracked by heat detecting equipment, SAS troops and Gurkhas and with only a rifle each and 10 bullets.
Surving 3 weeks in the desert while being tracked by Gurkhas and SAS troops and people used to living in the desert, and helicopters.

The mental side is also extremely strenous. I do believe they are interrogated for 72 hours without sleep or food, and drugged water. Those who pass that test are the ones who through through everything - violence, humilition good cop bad cop etc, are the ones who only ever give their serial number, rank, name and DOB.


Actually this is not all that far off it, Mt Snowdon is only a little over 1000m high though :)

From Wiki:

The selection phase can be broken down in to three main sections: 1) Physical endurance 2) Combat 3) Survival and evading capture

The physical endurance phase is the phase in which most candidates will be eliminated due to the difficulty of the test. The SAS use the Brecon Beacons in Wales to carry out the test. Over the course of a month the runs and hikes get progressively longer, the weights carried get heavier and recovery time shortens. The final stage of this phase of selection is known as "Test Week" and culminates with "Endurance", a forty mile march across the Brecon Beacons, completed in less than twenty hours with a load in excess of fifty-five pounds plus water, food and rifle.

Initial continuation training (4 weeks)

The combat phase is held in the jungle, normally in Brunei or Malaysia. This is where the successful candidates will learn to use weapons and tactics to outwit and outmanoeuvre enemy forces. The SAS, unlike most regiments, uses live ammunition on their combat phase. This is because they are trained to fight while considering friendly positions from the start, so that they can carry this straight on to the battlefield: 'You only get one chance'.

If candidates have managed to pass through this combat phase then now they have to go through survival and escape and evasion training. In this phase candidates that are left from the hundreds that apply will undergo a survival phase in the jungle, in which they only have a small 'survival kit'. They must 'survive' for a week while evading an enemy tracking party. This is a particularly hard phase because the tracking party is normally accustomed to the ground. After this week, the candidates must give themselves up at an agreed meeting point. They will then be taken back to the enemy HQ and interrogated. This interrogation phase will make or break their career as they must undergo physical and mental torture as well as aggressive interrogation. The SAS will accept roughly 2-7% of the soldiers who started selection.

Personnel completing selection are placed on probation for 12 months and undergo specialist and continuation training appropriate to their employing Troop or more general training such as languages or first aid. This training will include jungle, desert, urban and counter-terrorism specialist courses.



The Brecon Beacons is a mountain range - so although 40 miles in 20 hours is not realy all that much it is a looooong way up and down mountains - mostly off the trail.

One question. How exactly would it affect an officer's ability?

Sexual harassment issues. If the officer pushes her too hard to make her work as much as the rest of the people and dos not like it, she can lie about how "Captain touched me here!" or yell rape and ruin his career. This of all reasons I believe women and men should be in their own seperate units for this causes all sorts of issues a commander should not have to worry about.
A commander should be worried about doing what he can to get his troops home alive when the bullets are flying, not about if Jane complaining about John touching her a**.

I seen this happen, and unlike men who serve for practical reasons (a job) or ideals (serving their country) I think alot of woman serve for more weird reasons, cause they are ugly and want to hook up or for some other reason.

Co-ed should not be allowed. Yes I agree they should be allowed to serve but have them in seperated units when working. Only have them see each other through mixers and such on their own time to prevent trouble. Soldiers (both men and women) especailly young ones cannot and will not control themselves and if you think other wise tells me you have not seen this issues first hand.

If I was the Commander-in-Chief of a military I would impose just one restriction on who can and cannot take part in front-line operations. And that would be: can you kill a man with your bare hands?

Because realistically, that's what it may come down to. Obviously, this restriction is going to, overall, favour men - but I have no doubt that there are some women who will be perfectly able to slaughter for This Man's Army.

if one meets the physical requirements to be a soldier one should be allowed to be a soldier. If one does not, one should not.

Like any other job, a qualified person is a qualified person.

Women should have every opportunity to do whatever they want to do. The only restriction should be whether they were able to do the job or not.

In the UK army women are allowed to join any department except infantry, and tanks. The current reason is that male officers will be less effective when commanding female soldiers in such situations. It would certainly affect my ability in a situation of command.

If it would affect your ability to command, then you aren't fit to be in command.

If I was the Commander-in-Chief of a military I would impose just one restriction on who can and cannot take part in front-line operations. And that would be: can you kill a man with your bare hands?

Because realistically, that's what it may come down to. Obviously, this restriction is going to, overall, favour men - but I have no doubt that there are some women who will be perfectly able to slaughter for This Man's Army.

I would prefer to use my bayonet.;)

Lol, you have no idea how men work at all.

Most of the times, its sex who keeps a man sane. Without even being able to jack off alone since you have like no time alone in a sub, I can see a bunch of gungho marines geting extremely horn in a sub and gang raping even the most ugly of women.

Jacking off is embarassing in front of other men but gang rape is practically to be expected?

If they are fit for a job, sure.

Lol, you have no idea how men work at all.

Most of the times, its sex who keeps a man sane. Without even being able to jack off alone since you have like no time alone in a sub, I can see a bunch of gungho marines geting extremely horn in a sub and gang raping even the most ugly of women.
I think she has a better idea than you have. If you were correct, most men would be no better than animals, probably best put in cages to rot.

Why shouldn't they?
I strongly object to all things military, but I believe if men are legally allowed to join that, then women definitely should be allowed, too.

I have to agree with Cabra.

But of course they should.

I don't see any reason not to have women in the armed forces - and neither do any of the female soldiers I've known.

Lol, you have no idea how men work at all.
I beg to differ.

Most of the times, its sex who keeps a man sane. Without even being able to jack off alone since you have like no time alone in a sub, I can see a bunch of gungho marines geting extremely horn in a sub and gang raping even the most ugly of women.
Agreed. This is the crux of my argument. The animal desire for sex can sometimes overwhelming for men and women in a normal environment. Stick them in a cramped submarine and even the most controlled men can lose their cool.

I feel sorry for the both of you.

I feel sorry for the both of you.

Firstly, thanks for the condescension. It's really effective at keeping debates mature, objective and flame-free.

Secondly, if you knew anything about the submarine service you'd know about what I am talking about. In recent years the number of "loose zipper" incidents in the US Navy alone has increased sharply in the last 20 years, especially in the SSBN fleet which I was referring to.

The commander of Squadron 17, the US Navy squadron with the majority of Pacific SSBN's, was relieved due to sexual encounters with female officers December last year. And average of 10 submarine captains have been relieved per year due to similiar reasons since 2000, an increase from 6-8 per year in the 90's and a little below that in the 80's. And these are just the officers. Here's an article from Strategy.com about it:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20061216231422.asp

Firstly, thanks for the condescension.
You're well and truly welcome.

It's really effective at keeping debates mature, objective and flame-free.
That wasn't my intention. It was a subjective statement. I feel sorry for you and Northern Borders for having such an abyssmal view of men, and accepting men to be pure sexual animals driven by their instincts. Granted, that's pushing it, but it's still the apperant gist of your posts. I feel sorry for you since that's obviously the norm as far as you see it, and that's just sad.

Oh, and yes, it was indeed a flame-free statement.

Secondly, if you knew anything about the submarine service you'd know about what I am talking about.
What makes you think I don't?

In recent years the number of "loose zipper" incidents in the US Navy alone has increased sharply in the last 20 years, especially in the SSBN fleet which I was referring to.

The commander of Squadron 17, the US Navy squadron with the majority of Pacific SSBN's, was relieved due to sexual encounters with female officers December last year.
Was he? The article you posted below doesn't say anything about that.

One of the things commanding officers are not supposed to do is commit adultery with the wives of subordinates.
"the wives of", not "adultery with subordinates".

And average of 10 submarine captains have been relieved per year due to similiar reasons since 2000, an increase from 6-8 per year in the 90's and a little below that in the 80's. And these are just the officers. Here's an article from Strategy.com about it:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20061216231422.asp
And again, the article does not say that it is due to women serving in the subs. Neither does this imply that "even the most controlled men can lose their cool" after being stuck in a sub.

I fail to see this as an argument against women in the military at all.

"the wives of", not "adultery with subordinates".

And again, the article does not say that it is due to women serving in the subs. Neither does this imply that "even the most controlled men can lose their cool" after being stuck in a sub.

I fail to see this as an argument against women in the military at all.

Firstly, it's not an argument against women in the military. I agree with everyone in this topic that women should be able to serve in every service they want as long as they are qualified and can pass medical and training targets, which, as many posters seem to agree, need to be raised in order to allow women to be treated as true equals. In particular I object to women in the British Army not being allowed to serve in Infantry and tanks because officers would be "distracted".

I only have a reservation about submarines. I don't have anything against women, and I don't believe all men are sexual predators.

Even if the commander of squadron 17 was having sexual encounters with subordinates wives, what makes you think he never tried to force himself on any female subordinates? You think he would commit adultery with subordinates wives, but never even consider sleeping with an unmarried female sailor on a sub?

Besides, that is just the squadron 17 commander. What about the other captains who have been dismissed? You think they only went after wives? And remember, this is just the officers. Imagine the ratings and petty officers.

You don't think there just might be a correlation between the large amount of officers being dismissed for sexual misconduct and the cramped, isolated, sexually tenuous environment they experience in those submarines?

Firstly, it's not an argument against women in the military.

No, just an argument for unequal treatment of women in the military.

I only have a reservation about submarines. I don't have anything against women, and I don't believe all men are sexual predators.

Just enough to warrant denying certain jobs to women?

Even if the commander of squadron 17 was having sexual encounters with subordinates wives, what makes you think he never tried to force himself on any female subordinates? You think he would commit adultery with subordinates wives, but never even consider sleeping with an unmarried female sailor on a sub?

If he would, then he is unfit for command. The solution is to relieve him of that command, not to punish female soldiers for his problems.

Besides, that is just the squadron 17 commander. What about the other captains who have been dismissed? You think they only went after wives? And remember, this is just the officers. Imagine the ratings and petty officers.

If they were acting inappropriately, they are unfit for command (or at least deserve punishment for their actions).

You don't think there just might be a correlation between the large amount of officers being dismissed for sexual misconduct and the cramped, isolated, sexually tenuous environment they experience in those submarines?

A correlation? Perhaps. But it still basically points to the fact that those particular officers can't control themselves, and are thus unfit for command.

Absolutely. I have already painstakingly dismantled any argument to the contrary and I'm not going to repeat it unless someone asks. As long as they pass the tests. As Bottle has said, punish the culprits.

Women are smaller on average and their bones break more easily.
They bleed out of a hole in their bodies every months, causing increased logistic burdens.
Oh yeah they can get pregnant, incapacitating them for months at a time.
Women tend to be less aggressive than men due to hormonal differences.

Also, gentlemen don't sit on their asses while women are out getting shot at. I would hate to see America sending women off to get killed like some godless communist country.

OK go!

If it would affect your ability to command, then you aren't fit to call yourself a man.

fixed

You don't think there just might be a correlation between the large amount of officers being dismissed for sexual misconduct and the cramped, isolated, sexually tenuous environment they experience in those submarines?

I wouldn't want someone with such a lack of self control to be anywhere near such a powerful weapons platform that could kill so many people anyway. Besides, punishing women sailors for the faults of their superiors is hardly the thing to do. Perhaps having strong punishments for those who use their authority to get sex would be a wise idea? If it is such a widespread issue than obviously the armed forces is turning a blind eye which would be the reason for the prevalence of the problem.

Women are smaller on average and their bones break more easily.
Source?
They bleed out of a hole in their bodies every months, causing increased logistic burdens.
How so?
Oh yeah they can get pregnant, incapacitating them for months at a time.
Men can get injured and face the similiar or longer downtime.
Women tend to be less aggressive than men due to hormonal differences.
Source?
Assuming it is true, what difference does it make?
Also, gentlemen don't sit on their asses while women are out getting shot at.
If your soldiers sit on their asses when anyone is getting shot at then you need to rethink how you train them.
I would hate to see America sending women off to get killed like some godless communist country.

OK go!

I'm sorry, hows does one kill a godless communist country?

And what kind of retarded army sends it's soldier to die anywhere?!

Women are smaller on average and their bones break more easily.
They bleed out of a hole in their bodies every months, causing increased logistic burdens.
Oh yeah they can get pregnant, incapacitating them for months at a time.
Women tend to be less aggressive than men due to hormonal differences.

Also, gentlemen don't sit on their asses while women are out getting shot at. I would hate to see America sending women off to get killed like some godless communist country.

OK go!



fixed

haha you don't know how sexist you just sounded.

And the american equavalent to the SAS is probably the Navy S.E.A.L.s

I wouldn't want someone with such a lack of self control to be anywhere near such a powerful weapons platform that could kill so many people anyway.

But you see, the men are attracted to and have sex with the women due to sexual urges caused by testosterone/hormones. You'll find a scant few sailors who'll push the button for the missiles just in order to climax.

-Meaningful and intelligent rebuttal-

Stop feeding the troll.

Women are smaller on average and their bones break more easily.

Plenty of tiny men. And, what, women are like elderly people? Are going to break their hip if they fall? :rolleyes:

They bleed out of a hole in their bodies every months, causing increased logistic burdens.

Yeah, I bet is would cost millions to take care of this little issue. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah they can get pregnant, incapacitating them for months at a time.

Why hire a woman in any job? She'll be incapacitated for months. Not sensible for employers it would seem. I suppose women should go back to the home entirely?

Women tend to be less aggressive than men due to hormonal differences.

Why would any women be joining the military in the first place than? Seems they may not be as passive as you believe.

Also, gentlemen don't sit on their asses while women are out getting shot at. I would hate to see America sending women off to get killed like some godless communist country.

So in a democracy we keep our women safely at home whether they like it or not? And I don't think men are going to drop everything they are doing to rescue the "woman in distress". If she needs any extra assistance than the training she received was sub-par and it is the military who is to blame.

Source?

Do I look like a medical journal? It has to do with the thing that makes women more likely to get osteoperosis.

How so?
Well, I'll admit that I'm no expert on this but since there's an entire isle in the grocery store dedicated to "feminine hygeine" I would assume that women need special products.

Men can get injured and face the similiar or longer downtime.

This is true, yet it does not cange the fact that women get pregnant and men can't. Nice red herring :rolleyes:

If your soldiers sit on their asses when anyone is getting shot at then you need to rethink how you train them.

I was referring to civilians, and I'm pretty sure you knew that. :rolleyes:

And what kind of retarded army sends it's soldier to die anywhere?!

An army that knows you can't win a war without losses.



All of the US special forces units were originally based on the SAS.

One of the biggest problems with putting women on submarines is that they have a tendency to get pregnant. Even if it's consentual, all it takes is one broken condom and you have a big problem.

Source?


I think that any population height survey on earth will show you that women are statistically likely to be a fair bit smaller than men. Of course this does not have much bearing on the individuals taking the test which could include a woman who is 6' tall and stacked with muscle in amoung the 5'4" women. The ones who are strong enough to pass physical make it, those who arent don't - ditto the men.

However - as for the bones - one problem the British army has found with opening many roles to women, and the corresponding increase in female applicants is that the women who are applying have a much higher injury rate during training often leading to dropouts.



As for the submarines - I always understood the reason for not allowing women to serve on them was that space is in such chronic short supply that seperate showers were difficult to provide.


I really should reiterate - I am in full support of women in the armed forces. I know several women who went off to join the RAF and one girl from my uni class went to Sandhurst with the Army - I see no reason why any of these women, or the many others out there who are capeable, should not serve.

However - I think the Army/Navy/RAF need to address the human factor - people are not machines, even after training designed to drive out feelings to turn you into a cold hard killing machine, people still have emotions and respond to situations in certain ways. One such situation is that many men, either through instinct or conditioning, are protective of women - this is how the people come into the army and ignoring that will get you nowhere. A problem that this creates is that you have the very real possibility of men making a descision based on an instinct/desire to protect a female member of the group when it might put another member in increased danger. The army is not responsible for changing society (thank god...) but it has to deal with what the pool of society has to offer it's intake - and such issues are inherent in the intake and either need to be addressed or driven out of the individuals through further deadening of their emotions.

Women should be able to serve their country in the military, in whatever service they wish as long as they can obviously pass the standard medical tests and training etc.

However, I think I might have to make an expection for women serving on submarines. Putting women into a submarine which is invariably going to be male dominated, at sea for a long time, where sexual tensions are high and space is at a premium, I think might not be a good idea. They would be much more susceptible to sexual abuse in such an environment I believe and it makes things complicated if they get pregnant whilst on board.

What does everyone else think?


I think that argument smacks of an assumption that ought not to be basis for excluding women from any branch of service. Namely, that a submarine is some special circumstance where men cannot be expected to control themselves in the presence of women.

Either you expect your military personnel to be disciplined and respectful, in which case it doesn't matter where they're serving or for how long, they control themselves-- that includes the men controlling their 'dominant' sexual urges-- or you don't hold them up to that standard, in which case women in the military aren't safe anywhere because not all men are the same and if sexual aggressiveness towards women is given some kind of a tacit pass on a submarine, there are men who'll cry "my chromosomes made me do it" somewhere besides a submarine.

When my daughter was in the Navy and stationed on a ship, I ran into one of those foolish women who, immediately on hearing about my daughter, said that it was immoral to have women on ships with men because the men wouldn't be able to resist the temptation. My response to her was that if her husband/fiancee/son/brother/whatever didn't have enough self-control to keep it in his pants, then he didn't have enough self-control to be handling weapons and large machines and had no business being in the military. She was, needless to say, quite irate.

No restrictions as long as there are no exceptions made for testing and training. You pass that test or training for that job, you get the job. But there must be NO differences in the requirements for ANYBODY.

Only in medical jobs and such. Nothing combat.

No restrictions as long as there are no exceptions made for testing and training. You pass that test or training for that job, you get the job. But there must be NO differences in the requirements for ANYBODY.
More or less where I stand on it.

When my daughter was in the Navy and stationed on a ship, I ran into one of those foolish women who, immediately on hearing about my daughter, said that it was immoral to have women on ships with men because the men wouldn't be able to resist the temptation. My response to her was that if her husband/fiancee/son/brother/whatever didn't have enough self-control to keep it in his pants, then he didn't have enough self-control to be handling weapons and large machines and had no business being in the military. She was, needless to say, quite irate.

I suppose she thinks men are simple beasts who can't be held accountable for their urges. And of course your daughter is at fault for provoking the behavior. Amazing how she can be insulting to multiple people at once. Quite a feat.

When my daughter was in the Navy and stationed on a ship, I ran into one of those foolish women who, immediately on hearing about my daughter, said that it was immoral to have women on ships with men because the men wouldn't be able to resist the temptation. My response to her was that if her husband/fiancee/son/brother/whatever didn't have enough self-control to keep it in his pants, then he didn't have enough self-control to be handling weapons and large machines and had no business being in the military. She was, needless to say, quite irate.

I can see why she would be, but you're right. The suggestion that somehow the self-control required for the average male to not have sex is greater than the self-control required to adequately operate a 2 million dollar piece of equipment that flies through the fucking air is pretty absurd.

*resists urge to ask a somewhat foolish question*

Of course women should be able to join the service, why shouldn't they?

Women should be allowed to serve however they want (Medicine, Support), as long as it is not in any of the Combat Arms branches, or in Special Operations.



And not all of US Special Forces were based on SAS, US Army Green Berets are based on the US OSS of WW2. SEALs are based on the Frogmen, and Rangers are based on Colonial Rogers Rangers of the French and Indian Wars.

Women should be allowed to serve however they want (Medicine, Support), as long as it is not in any of the Combat Arms branches, or in Special Operations.

If a woman is capable of it, why not?

Women should be allowed to serve however they want (Medicine, Support), as long as it is not in any of the Combat Arms branches, or in Special Operations.

And why is that?

Do I look like a medical journal? It has to do with the thing that makes women more likely to get osteoperosis.
What about women who don't have it?

Well, I'll admit that I'm no expert on this but since there's an entire isle in the grocery store dedicated to "feminine hygeine" I would assume that women need special products.

How is this even related? And do you honestly think those necessary products from this aisle cost much?

One of the biggest problems with putting women on submarines is that they have a tendency to get pregnant. Even if it's consentual, all it takes is one broken condom and you have a big problem.
Ever heard of anti-pregnancy medication?

If a woman is capable of it, why not?

I'm sure it will be one stereotypical response or another...

I can see why she would be, but you're right. The suggestion that somehow the self-control required for the average male to not have sex is greater than the self-control required to adequately operate a 2 million dollar piece of equipment that flies through the fucking air is pretty absurd.

*resists urge to ask a somewhat foolish question*

I am now curious, what is the somewhat foolish question?

How is this even related? And do you honestly think those necessary products from this aisle cost much?

Interestingly enough, feminine hygiene products are generally in sterile packages. In a pinch, they can be used as extra bandages.

I am now curious, what is the somewhat foolish question?

Based solely on the context of the post I was responding to, and the posts I've read since I joined, you're one of the older folks on NSG. I have a custom of singling out one of the old folks and asking them this question:

"Can I call you gramps from now on?"

Based solely on the context of the post I was responding to, and the posts I've read since I joined, you're one of the older folks on NSG. I have a custom of singling out one of the old folks and asking them this question:

"Can I call you gramps from now on?"

No, but you can call me gramma, even though I'm not one yet.

No, but you can call me gramma, even though I'm not one yet.

Does grams work?

Does grams work?

If that makes you happy.

If that makes you happy.

Yay! *does the happy dance*

Equal rights? Let 'em fight. I think they've earned it. ;)

Sure, if they're fool enough, why stop them?

I think its a bad idea.

I think its a bad idea.
Why?

Why?Because women shouldn't be aggressive towards men and shouldn't hold positions of authority over men.. At least not if you're an orthodox religious type and your religion happens to be overly misogynistic.

Why?

They are targets if captured to be the other side's "play things", they can be a distraction to men in their unit, they aren't as physically strong as men which could lead to problems in the heat of battle. I could go on but the point is women shouldn't be on the frontlines, in subs, or in the officer ranks. It just doesn't make for a sound military.

They are targets if captured to be the other side's "play things",
They undertake that risk by joining the military.

they can be a distraction to men in their unit,
Then the men in their unit need to learn more self-discipline, else they shouldn't be serving in the military.

they aren't as physically strong as men which could lead to problems in the heat of battle.
Some women have a higher strength potential than others. In general women tend to be able to develop significant lower body strength. Further, martial arts exist that are technique-focused (e.g. Krav Maga, Aikido, Wing Chun) that a woman aspiring to join the military can learn. Obviously, the women who served would not be weaklings. Most combat is not hand-to-hand anyway. So this is a poor argument.

They undertake that risk by joining the military.
True but staying off the frontline reduces the risk.

Then the men in their unit need to learn more self-discipline, else they shouldn't be serving in the military.
perhaps.

Some women have a higher strength potential than others. In general women tend to be able to develop significant lower body strength. Further, martial arts exist that are technique-focused (e.g. Krav Maga, Aikido, Wing Chun) that a woman aspiring to join the military can learn. Obviously, the women who served would not be weaklings. Most combat is not hand-to-hand anyway. So this is a poor argument.

I'm not talking about hand to hand combat. I'm talking about dragging your wounded mate out of the line of fire or opening a stuck humvee door to get people out before it explodes. Things that put peoples lives at risk by having women out there in the name of equality or other bullshit.

True but staying off the frontline reduces the risk.
That's for them to decide.

I'm not talking about hand to hand combat. I'm talking about dragging your wound mate out of the line of fire or opening a stuck humvee door to get people out before it explodes. Things that put peoples lives at risk by having women out there in the name of equality or other bullshit.
But again, not all men in the military of equal strength. Some undoubtedly would encounter difficulty in hauling their heavier partners around. At any rate, since a woman would most likely be assigned to fight alongside other women, would this be much of an issue? Like I said, the women most likely to serve would of necessity meet the same requirements as men, so they would not be physically weak.

That's for them to decide.


But again, not all men in the military of equal strength. Some undoubtedly would encounter difficulty in hauling their heavier partners around. At any rate, since a woman would most likely be assigned to fight alongside other women, would this be much of an issue?

Generals would only put an all women unit out there if they actually want to lose the war.

True but staying off the frontline reduces the risk.


Today's battlefield (and most battlefields in the foreseeable future) aren't linear. There really aren't 'Front Lines' anymore.

And any soldier is at risk these days of falling victim to a roadside bomb or other ambush. You don't have to be an infrantryman for it to happen either; you could be an administrator or a mechanic in a convoy. Jessica Lynch and all that.

Generals would only put an all women unit out there if they actually want to lose the war.
Care to prove that?

Even so, if a woman were strong enough to meet the requirements of the fighting units, I doubt she'd have much trouble hauling around male partners of similar size. Some women can amass significant strength. We're not talking about average females here.

I think its a bad idea.Why?
because at certain times of the month... it's dangerous enough... and you want them trained on how to kill?!?! :eek:









:D

Generals would only put an all women unit out there if they actually want to lose the war.

Care to prove that?
easily...

if there is anyone who can prove a man wrong... it's a woman.

so if the Male Generals want to loose, they know they will loose, they put women out onto the feild... of course the women will prove those men wrong and win the war... and not only that, but insure a longer lasting peace! :D

...


...


ok, I'm going to sleep now... :(

They are targets if captured to be the other side's "play things"As are males, children and anything else that can be degraded and abused. It's a great argument for not going to war, but it's no argument for discrimination.they can be a distraction to men in their unitAs can the men for the women, the men for the men and the women for the women. Then again, an employer typically won't hire you - or keep you hired, anyway - if you haven't even the slightest bit of self discipline. Regardless, this fails as an argument for discrimination.they aren't as physically strong as men which could lead to problems in the heat of battleI'm pretty confident I can curl you up & throw you away like a used tissue. That doesn't mean males shouldn't be allowed in the military, just that not all human beings have the same amount of physical strength. If physical strength is a job requirement, it's a job requirement. Gender, once aggain, has merry fuck-all to do with it.I could go on but the point is women shouldn't be on the frontlines, in subs, or in the officer ranks. It just doesn't make for a sound military.So far you've offered no argument to back your claim.They undertake that risk by joining the military.Just like everyone else does when they join. Great argument for not joining, no argument for discriminating.I'm not talking about hand to hand combat. I'm talking about dragging your wound mate out of the line of fire or opening a stuck humvee door to get people out before it explodes. Things that put peoples lives at risk by having women out there in the name of equality or other bullshit.Already addressed. Employers don't hire people incapable of performing the job. Gender's got nothing to do with it.Generals would only put an all women unit out there if they actually want to lose the war.Last I checked, the US armed forces - arguably the greatest fighting force the planet has ever seen - went to some length to examine this, and the conclusion was that mixed gender units perform better in the field than all male and all female units. So for the first time in this thread, you may have said something true. Too bad it invalidates your pathetic attempt at an argument.

Of course, there's the psychological factor to consider. It might be useful to field all female units against strongly misogynistic enemies, for example, as it might lead the enemy to underestimate the unit and/or deliver a right good blow to their morale.

Anyway, why don't you just come out and say women shouldn't be allowed to use force and hold positions of authority, because the religious/social norms you seek to emulate says so? At least that'd make you an honest misogynist.

I read somewhere (I wish I remembered where) that some groups (native American tribes, Bedouins, etc) didn't want women in combat because they were afraid of them - they knew what angry, trained women with weapons would do to men.

easily...

if there is anyone who can prove a man wrong... it's a woman.

so if the Male Generals want to loose, they know they will loose, they put women out onto the feild... of course the women will prove those men wrong and win the war... and not only that, but insure a longer lasting peace! :D


LOL. Classic. :D

I thought the Green Berets didn't allow women in...

I read somewhere (I wish I remembered where) that some groups (native American tribes, Bedouins, etc) didn't want women in combat because they were afraid of them - they knew what angry, trained women with weapons would do to men.

I think it was in that Russion theatre hostage incident a few years ago (A mixed group of hostage takers held a few hundred hostages in a theatre). Afterwards one fo the soldiers who took part in the rescue said that they had been given orders to "shoot the women first" on the basis that the female hostage takers were judged to be more motivated and less likely to surrender prefering instead to go down with their finger jammed on the trigger.

Generals would only put an all women unit out there if they actually want to lose the war.

Sexist.

Want to win a war? Send all the women on PMS or starting menopause and I'll garuntee you that the other side will be in full retreat.

because at certain times of the month... it's dangerous enough... and you want them trained on how to kill?!?! :eek:









:D

LMAO!!!

JuNii ftw

I'm not talking about hand to hand combat. I'm talking about dragging your wounded mate out of the line of fire or opening a stuck humvee door to get people out before it explodes. Things that put peoples lives at risk by having women out there in the name of equality or other bullshit.
So, what, you haul around your wounded comrades by your penis?

I know some of you may up and die of shock, here, but there are actually some women who have real-live honest to God muscles. There are even women who are able to physically move around great big strong menfolks. Here at the medical center where I work, we call such women "nurses."

I've seen a 55 year old woman who weighs maybe 95 pounds dripping wet move a hulking college B-ball player by herself. I don't think they issue superpowers to the nursing staff, so I'm guessing she didn't use any mind-rays or nothing to do this.

If you're worried about women being able to drag comrades out of harm's way, then make that kind of thing a test that is required for front-line infantry. Make men and women both take the test. And when women pass the test, kindly give up this charming notion of how only the be-penised are capable of pulling a fallen comrade to safety.

So, what, you haul around your wounded comrades by your penis?

I know some of you may up and die of shock, here, but there are actually some women who have real-live honest to God muscles. There are even women who are able to physically move around great big strong menfolks. Here at the medical center where I work, we call such women "nurses."

I've seen a 55 year old woman who weighs maybe 95 pounds dripping wet move a hulking college B-ball player by herself. I don't think they issue superpowers to the nursing staff, so I'm guessing she didn't use any mind-rays or nothing to do this.

If you're worried about women being able to drag comrades out of harm's way, then make that kind of thing a test that is required for front-line infantry. Make men and women both take the test. And when women pass the test, kindly give up this charming notion of how only the be-penised are capable of pulling a fallen comrade to safety.

I second the motion.

So, what, you haul around your wounded comrades by your penis?Only if they're conscious and not too badly hurt. Otherwise it'd just be a chore, and chores - as we all know - are why women are suffered to live. That and their twats.

Hell, come to think of it, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that my mother could lug my father across a battlefield on her damn shoulders if she needed to. And she's not even five feet tall. That woman out-arm-wrestled my high school gym teacher (and boy was his face red).

Only if they're conscious and not too badly hurt. Otherwise it'd just be a chore, and chores - as we all know - are why women are suffered to live. That and their twats.
Women are life-support for the boobies. This is known.

Women are life-support for the boobies. This is known.Yeh, that's what I don't get about all these religious coverup'ers. Sure, tits and arse are nice thinking about, but I'd much rather be looking than wondering what they look like inside those big sacks.

... Though I s'pose it's pretty handy for the woman when she's picking my my trach and my dirty socks.

Maybe if we cut a couple of holes in them?



.... I just took it too far, didn't I? Good thing I'm home alone (yes I'm the housewife at the moment. Now toss me that sack)

So, what, you haul around your wounded comrades by your penis?

I know some of you may up and die of shock, here, but there are actually some women who have real-live honest to God muscles. There are even women who are able to physically move around great big strong menfolks. Here at the medical center where I work, we call such women "nurses."

I've seen a 55 year old woman who weighs maybe 95 pounds dripping wet move a hulking college B-ball player by herself. I don't think they issue superpowers to the nursing staff, so I'm guessing she didn't use any mind-rays or nothing to do this.

If you're worried about women being able to drag comrades out of harm's way, then make that kind of thing a test that is required for front-line infantry. Make men and women both take the test. And when women pass the test, kindly give up this charming notion of how only the be-penised are capable of pulling a fallen comrade to safety.


It's simple really, if a man was to fight a woman most tiomes the man is at an advantage and the woman a disadvantage.

When the enemy decide that women can fight on the front, then I guess so will the rest of the world.

Simple, clear.

Having spent 4 years in the US Army, I'm very much in favor of women being unrestricted in however they want to serve. However, I will echo the call for women having to pass the same PT standards as men (for combat arms, anyway). I've met a number of women who would be quite capable of being combat arms, and I've met a number of men who were combat arms but really shouldn't have been.

I agree whole heartedly with you Wall.... and the others who support this and as with you I know many of the women I have served with who could more then be in combat arms and I do know a few men when I was an 11H who should not have been, but I think trying to make standards equaled would be knocked down and destroyed by the minority of women who say they want equality , but really want to have everything including preferential treatment. I do nto think that is most women but the majority seem to get tarred by the few who seem to run the show for equality.

*looks over World War II history*

USSR

*runs away*

It's simple really, if a man was to fight a woman most tiomes the man is at an advantage and the woman a disadvantage.

When we are talking about trained soldiers, I think you'll find that's particularly bunk.

But please, feel free to provide evidence for your claim that a female soldier is less able to function in combat situations than a male soldier. Given that the most expensive and advanced military in the history of the world has concluded that women are, in fact, not at a disadvantage due to their femaleness, I'm sure we will all be fascinated to hear about your sources on the matter.


When the enemy decide that women can fight on the front, then I guess so will the rest of the world.

Because, as we all know, when you want to determine who would make the best soldiers for your army, the best course of action is to ask your enemy for their advice.


Simple, clear.
Simple, clear, and utterly uncomplicated by trivialities like fact and reason.

When we are talking about trained soldiers, I think you'll find that's particularly bunk.

But please, feel free to provide evidence for your claim that a female soldier is less able to function in combat situations than a male soldier. Given that the most expensive and advanced military in the history of the world has concluded that women are, in fact, not at a disadvantage due to their femaleness, I'm sure we will all be fascinated to hear about your sources on the matter.


Because, as we all know, when you want to determine who would make the best soldiers for your army, the best course of action is to ask your enemy for their advice.


Simple, clear, and utterly uncomplicated by trivialities like fact and reason.

Hey Bottle,

Blah simple common sense, most women are physicaly weaker than most men, most women soldiers will be physicaly weaker than most men soiders.

Deny it if ya like, I don't really mind, I don't really care, I don't really care about the armed forces, so let women fight on the front I really have no opinon, just saying what is true for everybody who has eyes to see.

Hey Bottle,

Blah simple common sense, most women are physicaly weaker than most men, most women soldiers will be physicaly weaker than most men soiders.

Deny it if ya like, I don't really mind, I don't really care, I don't really care about the armed forces, so let women fight on the front I really have no opinon, just saying what is true for everybody who has eyes to see.

However - ALL male and female soldiers have to be above a standard of fitness determined by the armed force in question. The army has determined that if you are above that standard of fitness then you are strong enough to be an effective soldier. As long as the standards are equal then a man passing the test and a woman passing the test with the same score are both equally fit.

True the chances are that a woman is likely to be less fit than a male who also passed, but likewise many males are less fit than other males in the army. However the thing they all have in common shouold be that they are all fit enough.

However - ALL male and female soldiers have to be above a standard of fitness determined by the armed force in question. The army has determined that if you are above that standard of fitness then you are strong enough to be an effective soldier. As long as the standards are equal then a man passing the test and a woman passing the test with the same score are both equally fit.

True the chances are that a woman is likely to be less fit than a male who also passed, but likewise many males are less fit than other males in the army. However the thing they all have in common shouold be that they are all fit enough.

Taking all that into account, and taking into account I am not taking about fittness but build, and taking into account the training given, it still make no differance.

A highly trained woman solider is still going to be(in most cases) physicaly weaker than a highly trained male soldier, and seeing as they are both highly trained, in fact equaly trained, the physical differance will still be a factor when it comes to them fighting each other.

At the current worldwide level of technology, the most common way for a soldier to kill an enemy is to open a hole in their bodies, or a considerable amount of them, using a projectile weapon from a relative distance.

After we acknowledge that, I can't see why we women should be worse at that than men.

If the world ever devolves to use flamberges, pikes, two handed hammers and the rest of that again, we can speak about the physical and muscular restrictions of women being an issue.

At the current worldwide level of technology, the most common way for a soldier to kill an enemy is to open a hole in their bodies, or a considerable amount of them, using a projectile weapon from a relative distance.

After we acknowledge that, I can't see why we women should be worse at that than men.

If the world ever devolves to use flamberges, pikes, two handed hammers and the rest of that again, we can speak about the physical and muscular restrictions of women being an issue.

Why bother saying anymore?

Thanks for saving me the keystrokes.

At the current worldwide level of technology, the most common way for a soldier to kill an enemy is to open a hole in their bodies, or a considerable amount of them, using a projectile weapon from a relative distance.

After we acknowledge that, I can't see why we women should be worse at that than men.

If the world ever devolves to use flamberges, pikes, two handed hammers and the rest of that again, we can speak about the physical and muscular restrictions of women being an issue.

That is of course quite true.

That is of course quite true.

The muscular situation comes into play when the job is infantry. Where you have to walk with 125 to 150 pounds of shit on your back for 20 miles.

If the woman is capable, however, I don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to be in the infantry.

The muscular situation comes into play when the job is infantry. Where you have to walk with 125 to 150 pounds of shit on your back for 20 miles.

If the woman is capable, however, I don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to be in the infantry.

The only thing you need then is to have female shooters, (who in my rather short experience have better hand-eye coordination), in squads with big lumbering men able to walk with 250 to 300 pounds of shit on their backs for 20 miles for each shooter.

Problem solved.

Eventually, we could even switch the men with donkeys, or tamed apes, or robots, depending on how the technology develops.

The only thing you need then is to have female shooters, (who in my rather short experience have better hand-eye coordination), in squads with big lumbering men able to walk with 250 to 300 pounds of shit on their backs for 20 miles for each shooter.

Problem solved.

Eventually, we could even switch the men with donkeys, or tamed apes, or robots, depending on how the technology develops.

Doesn't work that way - you have to be able to carry your own stuff.

Also, women generally shoot better because unlike men (who have their own preconceived notions that they know how to do it), women are better learners when it comes to shooting.

Doesn't work that way - you have to be able to carry your own stuff.

Also, women generally shoot better because unlike men (who have their own preconceived notions that they know how to do it), women are better learners when it comes to shooting.

I do want a better reason for that "you have to be able to carry your own stuff" thing. A logic, tactical one of why the others members of your team cannot carry your stuff, (apart from weapons and munitions). After all, hardly most infantry units these days are deployed away from a base for a large amount of time.

And yes, we are better learners and better shooters, no idea of the reason, but could be the one you have highlighted.

I do want a better reason for that "you have to be able to carry your own stuff" thing. A logic, tactical one of why the others members of your team cannot carry your stuff, (apart from weapons and munitions). After all, hardly most infantry units these days are deployed away from a base for a large amount of time.

You need to be able to carry your own kit because you and your unit have to be able to function when things go wrong. If your carrier gets injured and can't carry your kit then you are also out of combat. Also if you are isolated you still need to be able to function - which you cannot do if you can barely move while carrying your gear.

In addition - there is a big difference between carrying one set of kit and carrying two - a kit is designed to be light enough to be able to be carried for a long time while also having as many essentials as possible. Making it twice as heavy severely impairs the carriers ability to function.

Also - if a woman (or any person) needs an additional person to function in the field then they are half as effective as someone who can carry their own kit. So saying women should not have to carry their kit as you could have an extra person in the field seems to be counterproductive to arguing for women in the field.


And yes, we are better learners and better shooters, no idea of the reason, but could be the one you have highlighted.
I saw a program on gurkas - their shooting instructor said they improve much faster than western troops because they have fewer preconceptions on their abiity and less arrogance when being taught. A similar situation could apply to women.

I do want a better reason for that "you have to be able to carry your own stuff" thing. A logic, tactical one of why the others members of your team cannot carry your stuff, (apart from weapons and munitions). After all, hardly most infantry units these days are deployed away from a base for a large amount of time.

And yes, we are better learners and better shooters, no idea of the reason, but could be the one you have highlighted.

If you're separated from your load of stuff by as few as a few meters, it may not be possible to cross that distance to get it without being killed.

If you have it on you, you have it.

In the service, we call that "wear it or lose it".

Most Special Forces are deployed away from base for weeks at a time.

When I was in light infantry, we could be away from supply for up to 65 days, with rations and water brought in by helicopter.

We're talking about each person carrying at a minimum:

10 kilos of body armor (ok, I'll wear your armor while you go without).
600 rounds of 5.56mm ammunition. (in magazines, that's about 10 kilos)
Grenades (optional) at about a half kilo a piece.
Water (about 4 kilos) (BTW, you will drink in combat, using your camelbak).
Other gear you'll need immediately usually comes to about 10 kilos.
Rifle (4 kilos)

So at a minimum, you should be able to carry the minimum load there, which will probably come to 40 kilos, with no food, and you should be able to run in it.

And that's if you're only a rifleman in an infantry squad. If you're a Javelin missile gunner, squad automatic weapon man, grenadier, or the M240 gunner, you'll be carrying a MINIMUM of about 15 kilos more.

Add food for being in the middle of nowhere, and the weight goes up even more.

All of that said:

I've seen some men who can't carry that, and move.

I've seen some women who can.

It should be based on your physical ability, if you're an infantryman.

All of that said:

I've seen some men who can't carry that, and move.

I've seen some women who can.

It should be based on your physical ability, if you're an infantryman.

Point taken, thanks for your explanation.

10 kilos of body armor? Wow.

But well, I indeed know a lot of men unable to carry 50 kilos that distance, to say a number, and women who can. As you said, it depends.

Point taken, thanks for your explanation.

10 kilos of body armor? Wow.

But well, I indeed know a lot of men unable to carry 50 kilos that distance, to say a number, and women who can. As you said, it depends.

I've been able to move 12 miles in about 2 hours and five minutes with the "minimum load".

But that was when I was 27.

You need to be able to carry your own kit because you and your unit have to be able to function when things go wrong. If your carrier gets injured and can't carry your kit then you are also out of combat. Also if you are isolated you still need to be able to function - which you cannot do if you can barely move while carrying your gear.

In addition - there is a big difference between carrying one set of kit and carrying two - a kit is designed to be light enough to be able to be carried for a long time while also having as many essentials as possible. Making it twice as heavy severely impairs the carriers ability to function.

Also - if a woman (or any person) needs an additional person to function in the field then they are half as effective as someone who can carry their own kit. So saying women should not have to carry their kit as you could have an extra person in the field seems to be counterproductive to arguing for women in the field.


You didn't understand half of my statement. After all, the "carrier" is still an armed soldier, no?

For the rest, I think I already accepted the other arguments presented on this thread.

Well, I'll go guerrilla. Seems to be easier that way for us the females. USSR snipers showed that.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:mI6DKbxX0FZ0hM:http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/farc/farc-woman2.jpg

She did, too.

Stop feeding the troll.
Awwwww, but he looks so hungry.
Do I look like a medical journal? It has to do with the thing that makes women more likely to get osteoperosis.
See how you're connected to the internet? Well the internet has lots of information on lots of different things. Why don't you try and see if there's anything to back up what you say?
Well, I'll admit that I'm no expert on this but since there's an entire isle in the grocery store dedicated to "feminine hygeine" I would assume that women need special products.
And how does this disqualify them from serving on a sub?


This is true, yet it does not cange the fact that women get pregnant and men can't. Nice red herring :rolleyes:
I never said it didn't. I was merely pointing out that men too can be rendered incapable of serving.


I was referring to civilians, and I'm pretty sure you knew that. :rolleyes:
That's not clear at all, and how is it relevant what civilians would do when a female soldier was getting shot at?



An army that knows you can't win a war without losses.
And any army will try to win without losses despite that.


All of the US special forces units were originally based on the SAS.
How is this relevant?
One of the biggest problems with putting women on submarines is that they have a tendency to get pregnant. Even if it's consentual, all it takes is one broken condom and you have a big problem.

Ever heard of the pill? You know, that thing that women take to prevent getting pregnant? Even then there's the morning after pill.

Hey Bottle,

Blah simple common sense, most women are physicaly weaker than most men, most women soldiers will be physicaly weaker than most men soiders.

Define "physically weaker," please.

See, the female body has been repeatedly shown to have greater ability to withstand pain than the male body. The female body is better able to cope with varying forms of environmental stress. The female body is better able to fight off disease and infection. The female body is able to endure sustained physical stress with greater ease.

Now, granted, these are only averages. But when it comes to "strength," so far all I'm seeing is the standard glorification of male upper body strength. And seriously, are you people under the impression that the modern military is all about lifting big heavy things and bonking your enemy with clubs?

The types of strength that are actually most in demand for the modern military are about evenly split between the genders. In some cases, women's bodies are actually more likely to have the type of strength that will benefit a modern soldier.

And, of course, none of this is remotely relevant any how, since it totally ignores the fact that there are plenty of women who CAN meet your standards of "strength," and plenty of men who can't. Who cares if "the average" woman can't lift as much as "the average" man? If YOU, personally, can't lift the necessary amount, are you going to tell your CO that you should still be allowed to serve because the average man can lift it? Are you going to tell the CO that a woman who can lift that amount still shouldn't be allowed to serve because the average woman is weaker than the average man?


Deny it if ya like, I don't really mind, I don't really care, I don't really care about the armed forces, so let women fight on the front I really have no opinon, just saying what is true for everybody who has eyes to see.
You're displaying your ignorance for everybody who has eyes to see. I know that you, and many guys, really need to convince yourselves that man = strong, women = weak, but thankfully our military leaders have a bit more sense.

You didn't understand half of my statement. After all, the "carrier" is still an armed soldier, no?

For the rest, I think I already accepted the other arguments presented on this thread.

I assume you are refering to my statement about requireing an extra person in the field to function, therefore being half as effective.

The carrier may be an armed soldier, however there is a huge difference between carrying one set of kit and carrying two. A reasonably fit person can carry about 40kg for a sustained period, very very few people can carry 80kg for a sustained period. The carrier will have their functionality as an armed soldier severely impaired by both the massivly increased burden and by the shear size of it which will adversely affect mobility.

Define "physically weaker," please.

See, the female body has been repeatedly shown to have greater ability to withstand pain than the male body. The female body is better able to cope with varying forms of environmental stress. The female body is better able to fight off disease and infection. The female body is able to endure sustained physical stress with greater ease.
Plus, when referring to hand-to-hand combat, if a woman is really committed, there are fighting arts out there like the ones I mentioned earlier that allow her to overcome size differences (e.g. the Krav Maga, Aikido, the bone martial arts, Wing Chun etc). Women also have a lower body strength and balance advantage - they can put that to use.

Define "physically weaker," please.

See, the female body has been repeatedly shown to have greater ability to withstand pain than the male body. The female body is better able to cope with varying forms of environmental stress. The female body is better able to fight off disease and infection. The female body is able to endure sustained physical stress with greater ease.

Now, granted, these are only averages. But when it comes to "strength," so far all I'm seeing is the standard glorification of male upper body strength. And seriously, are you people under the impression that the modern military is all about lifting big heavy things and bonking your enemy with clubs?

The types of strength that are actually most in demand for the modern military are about evenly split between the genders. In some cases, women's bodies are actually more likely to have the type of strength that will benefit a modern soldier.

And, of course, none of this is remotely relevant any how, since it totally ignores the fact that there are plenty of women who CAN meet your standards of "strength," and plenty of men who can't. Who cares if "the average" woman can't lift as much as "the average" man? If YOU, personally, can't lift the necessary amount, are you going to tell your CO that you should still be allowed to serve because the average man can lift it? Are you going to tell the CO that a woman who can lift that amount still shouldn't be allowed to serve because the average woman is weaker than the average man?


You're displaying your ignorance for everybody who has eyes to see. I know that you, and many guys, really need to convince yourselves that man = strong, women = weak, but thankfully our military leaders have a bit more sense.


Hey Bottle,

I'm displying my ignorance for everybody to see?

So you are denying that most women are physicaly weaker than most men? Incredible.

Plus, when referring to hand-to-hand combat, if a woman is really committed, there are fighting arts out there like the ones I mentioned earlier that allow her to overcome size differences (e.g. the Krav Maga, Aikido, the bone martial arts, Wing Chun etc). Women also have a lower body strength and balance advantage - they can put that to use.
Differences in center of gravity can also become key in such situations.

Seriously, the whole "male = stronger" thing is so 2nd grade. People need to first define "strength," and then explain why that particular type of strength is more important than any of the other types of strength.

Differences in center of gravity can also become key in such situations.

Seriously, the whole "male = stronger" thing is so 2nd grade. People need to first define "strength," and then explain why that particular type of strength is more important than any of the other types of strength.

I always thought in military terms it was the strength to carry your gear - since as already pointed out here that hand to hand combat makes up a miniscule portion of what soldiers will face. Few soldiers will ever have to fight to the death in hand to hand combat. In this respect (carrying kit and hauling themselves up things from time to time)women do tend to perform less well than men, however as also mentioned by many here - those who do not meet the required standard should not be allowed in - just as men who do not meet the required standard should not be allowed in. The individuals who do meet the required standard however... why not?


One thing to note on the size/strength thing - many special forces troops tend to be smaller wirey men. Larger men find the training much harder as the endurance sections are much more demanding on them. The smaller wirey guys may not bench press as much as the bigger guys who did not make it through but due to training they will whip their asses in hand to hand combat almost every time. I see no reason why similar effects would not apply to women.

I always thought in military terms it was the strength to carry your gear - since as already pointed out here that hand to hand combat makes up a miniscule portion of what soldiers will face. Few soldiers will ever have to fight to the death in hand to hand combat. In this respect (carrying kit and hauling themselves up things from time to time)women do tend to perform less well than men, however as also mentioned by many here - those who do not meet the required standard should not be allowed in - just as men who do not meet the required standard should not be allowed in. The individuals who do meet the required standard however... why not?

Exactly.

I absolutely positively 100% support equal standards for men and women in the military. I don't think ANY unqualified person, male or female, should be assigned duties they cannot perform to spec.

I simply don't see why FEMALENESS is the issue here. If the problem is strength, then individuals who lack sufficient strength should not be serving in those roles...if an individual lacks the required strength yet has a penis, how exactly is that going to help? If an individual has the required strength yet lacks a penis, how will this be a problem?


One thing to note on the size/strength thing - many special forces troops tend to be smaller wirey men. Larger men find the training much harder as the endurance sections are much more demanding on them. The smaller wirey guys may not bench press as much as the bigger guys who did not make it through but due to training they will whip their asses in hand to hand combat almost every time. I see no reason why similar effects would not apply to women.
Indeed.

Hey Bottle,

I'm displying my ignorance for everybody to see?

So you are denying that most women are physicaly weaker than most men? Incredible.
Seriously, this is getting painful.

Read my post again, slowly. Give it a few minutes to sink in. Then, rethink your question.

I know you can do this.

Seriously, this is getting painful.

Read my post again, slowly. Give it a few minutes to sink in. Then, rethink your question.

I know you can do this.

Hey Bottle,

Heh I love the way you do that, back yourself out of a self made corner by using language desinged to make your oppenant look silly.

Seriously though, re-read my original post, realise the point I am makeing, and instead of dodging the question why not answer it truthfully?

Come on I know you can do it.

Differences in center of gravity can also become key in such situations.

Seriously, the whole "male = stronger" thing is so 2nd grade. People need to first define "strength," and then explain why that particular type of strength is more important than any of the other types of strength.

The strength isssue is two issues- One more of endurance-can you move yourself from point A to point B ? Are you strong enough to manage your own body?
I imagine many women that enlist already have a good strength to weight ratio,assuming they arent bulky or couch potatoes to start with.

The second issue would be bearing your own gear. Can you bring with you all the gear necessary to do your job? Are you able to drag or heft another wounded soldier out of harm's way?


I think these are the "strength" issues I'd be concerned with. And any individual that isnt able to perform adequately in either area would have a problem in my opinion.

Hey Bottle,

Heh I love the way you do that, back yourself out of a self made corner by using language desinged to make your oppenant look silly.

Huh?

Seriously, three other people so far have understood my point. I know you can do it. If I actually believed you were a moron, I would just stop talking to you, but I think you are completely capable of understanding what I'm saying.

Seriously though, re-read my original post, realise the point I am makeing, and instead of dodging the question why not answer it truthfully?

Come on I know you can do it.
I have answered your question, thoroughly and clearly. I might have considered the possibility that I was somehow unclear, but at least three other people so far have understood my answer, and have grasped my point.

The strength isssue is two issues- One more of endurance-can you move yourself from point A to point B ? Are you strong enough to manage your own body?
I imagine many women that enlist already have a good strength to weight ratio,assuming they arent bulky or couch potatoes to start with.

The second issue would be bearing your own gear. Can you bring with you all the gear necessary to do your job? Are you able to drag or heft another wounded soldier out of harm's way?


I think these are the "strength" issues I'd be concerned with. And any individual that isnt able to perform adequately in either area would have a problem in my opinion.
Indeed. A male who can't perform in those areas is just as useless as a female who cannot.

Hey Bottle,

Heh I love the way you do that, back yourself out of a self made corner by using language desinged to make your oppenant look silly.

Seriously though, re-read my original post, realise the point I am makeing, and instead of dodging the question why not answer it truthfully?

Come on I know you can do it.

I would say that a study could be conducted wherein it could be determined that asian men are generally weaker and more slightly built than african men. Does this mean that asian men should be prevented from joining the military?

You can't make a generalization about an entire group of people. Enlistment criteria should be uniform, and acceptance into any branch of the armed forces should be handled based on those criteria on a case by case basis.

I think any woman capable of serving who desires it should be allowed to do anything she has the ability to do.
I tried to join the military (Marines) just out of High School but was disallowed because I'm too damn blind. But both my mother and sister served as well as my father and one of my brothers. We have an enormous number of veterans in the family.

Hey, didn't you go on an indefinite hiatus a couple of weeks ago? Welcome back. :)

I think any woman capable of serving who desires it should be allowed to do anything she has the ability to do.
I tried to join the military (Marines) just out of High School but was disallowed because I'm too damn blind. But both my mother and sister served as well as my father and one of my brothers. We have an enormous number of veterans in the family.

I would say that a study could be conducted wherein it could be determined that asian men are generally weaker and more slightly built than african men. Does this mean that asian men should be prevented from joining the military?

You can't make a generalization about an entire group of people. Enlistment criteria should be uniform, and acceptance into any branch of the armed forces should be handled based on those criteria on a case by case basis.

Sheesh and again, I say read my OP, or more specificaly me second post on this subject.

Personaly, I don't care, I am no fan of the armed forces, if woman want to fight on the front, I have absolutly no opinion at all, all that I am saying is that most woman are physicaly weaker than most men, it may be this that the armed forces take nto account.

It's not my ruleing, I don't care, I just point out what is really an obvious thing for all to see.

Again I'll ask do you deny that most women are physicaly weaker than most men?

Bottle,

As to your define 'physicaly weaker' I have not bothered to do so, as when you look at an avarage man and an average woman of the same size(height) standing next to each other is is clearly obvious who is (in most cases) the physicaly stronger. Again, if you wish to deny this simple fact of life, be my guest.

Sheesh and again, I say read my OP, or more specificaly me second post on this subject.

all that I am saying is that most woman are physicaly weaker than most men, it may be this that the armed forces take nto account.
Irrevelent - if they pass the same standards as men then all the women who make it in are fit enough to serve.


As to your define 'physicaly weaker' I have not bothered to do so, as when you look at an avarage man and an average woman of the same size(height) standing next to each other is is clearly obvious who is (in most cases) the physicaly stronger. Again, if you wish to deny this simple fact of life, be my guest.
Why are the majority of special forces soldiers smaller wirey guys? They are physically less powerful than a bigger bulkier guy...

Irrevelent - if they pass the same standards as men then all the women who make it in are fit enough to serve.


Why are the majority of special forces soldiers smaller wirey guys? They are physically less powerful than a bigger bulkier guy...

*shrug* don't know, don't really care. Look I'll say it again, I'm not trying to make a case one way or t'other I really don't care.

Again, I'm not talking about fitness either, I am not saying this is the reason that the armed forces have such rulings, the main point I am making is it seems very clear and simple to me, that perhaps the armed forces take this into account, I really don't know but if I was asked, this would be the very first reason that I thought of.

Again, if you wish to deny it, fair doo's but you would be denying what is blatently obvious.

On a personal level do I belive that women should be given equal rights in the armed forces? Shit yeah! They should be free to fight and die for whatever they feel they must.

Hey, didn't you go on an indefinite hiatus a couple of weeks ago? Welcome back. :)
I'm so happy you and Neesika actually noticed. But it's temporary, I'm using the public library computer. it. Still no internet at home.

So, what, you haul around your wounded comrades by your penis?

I know some of you may up and die of shock, here, but there are actually some women who have real-live honest to God muscles. There are even women who are able to physically move around great big strong menfolks. Here at the medical center where I work, we call such women "nurses."

I've seen a 55 year old woman who weighs maybe 95 pounds dripping wet move a hulking college B-ball player by herself. I don't think they issue superpowers to the nursing staff, so I'm guessing she didn't use any mind-rays or nothing to do this.

If you're worried about women being able to drag comrades out of harm's way, then make that kind of thing a test that is required for front-line infantry. Make men and women both take the test. And when women pass the test, kindly give up this charming notion of how only the be-penised are capable of pulling a fallen comrade to safety.

The bottomline is men make better soliders, men are supposed to fight, not women. They are stronger, faster and generally speaking have a greater desire to fight than women. This is just how we were made, there are very real differences between the genders whether you want to admit it or not. So I don't really care what your nurse friend can do in a hospital, its not combat so save me the false analogies.

The bottomline is men make better soliders, men are supposed to fight, not women. They are stronger, faster and generally speaking have a greater desire to fight than women. This is just how we were made, there are very real differences between the genders whether you want to admit it or not. So I don't really care what your nurse friend can do in a hospital, its not combat so save me the false analogies.

Women seem to be just as good at fighting and killing. History proves you wrong.

There were plenty of women who were in the Red Army during WW II who would have easily kicked your ass.

I met plenty of women in the US Army who were more than capable in every way to be infantrymen.

And a few men who could not.

There is no analogy about it - you're wrong.

The bottomline is men make better soliders, men are supposed to fight, not women. They are stronger, faster and generally speaking have a greater desire to fight than women. This is just how we were made, there are very real differences between the genders whether you want to admit it or not. So I don't really care what your nurse friend can do in a hospital, its not combat so save me the false analogies.


If ever there was someone really deserving of having their ass handed to them by a female marine...

Soviestan - even Syrian women are telling you that you're wrong...

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/syria/sy05_04a.jpg

Hey Bottle,

I'm displying my ignorance for everybody to see?

So you are denying that most women are physicaly weaker than most men? Incredible.

I'm 5'4", when I was in my early 20's, I weighed in the neighborhood of 120#. I routinely beat my 6'5", 220# football fullback boyfriend at arm wrestling. I could run faster than he did, too. I could wrestle my varsity wrestler husband to a draw.

My daughter is 5'3" and weighs 110# on a fat day. When she was on work crews on her ship, she routinely caught and tossed 60-100# boxes with the men. She carried her 250# shipmate from belowdecks to the main deck on a bet - she won.

Both of us have very feminine builds.

If women, in general, are physically weaker than men, in general, I think a lot of it has to do with conditioning, both mental and physical.

Yes, they have uniforms and guns. This must mean they are good soldiers.:rolleyes:

Why are Khaddafis bodyguards women? They must be competent, he's still alive.

If ever there was someone really deserving of having their ass handed to them by a female marine...

I wouldn't mind having a marine as a girlfriend. If we ever run into a mugger I'll hold her purse while she kicks his ass. :)

Yes, Soveistan, even Soviet women were heartbreaking, death dealing snipers...

http://www.armysniper.org/HISTORY/history11.jpg

Soviestan - even Syrian women are telling you that you're wrong...

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/syria/sy05_04a.jpg

Yes, they have uniforms and guns. This must mean they are good soldiers.:rolleyes:

Yes, they have uniforms and guns. This must mean they are good soldiers.:rolleyes:

And pray tell why are you rolling your eyes? You saying women can't make good soldiers?

Kiss off you sexist pig.

Yes, they have uniforms and guns. This must mean they are good soldiers.:rolleyes:

Soveistan, you haven't read your history books.

Come back when you've finished your education.

Why are Khaddafis bodyguards women? They must be competent, he's still alive.

source? Even if it is true it doesn't mean a thing. Being a bodyguard isn't like being in combat.

Soveistan, you haven't read your history books.

Come back when you've finished your education.

He's a muslim. He feels that women should stay at home and only at home and wear burkhas and not go anywhere unless a male relative goes with them.

Soviet military records from World War II contain evidence that women can be as effective front-line soldiers as men, says Duke University historian Anna Krylova.

Krylova explores the mass volunteering of Soviet young women for combat in 1941, their integration into the armed forces and the implications that their performance have on gender roles in the military and Soviet society at large. The talk, “Beyond Gender: Women in Combat at the Soviet Front, 1930s-1940s,” will be from 4 to 6 p.m. at the National Humanities Center in Durham and is part of the Triangle Seminar in the History of the Military, War, and Society.

Krylova, who grew up in Moscow before coming to the United States to pursue a Ph.D. in history, said 800,000 women served in the Soviet military during WWII, 350,000 of them in combat.

“My goal is to make these numbers speak, to find out what kind of cultural and psychological developments in Stalinist society prepared young women to volunteer for the front and what kind of soldiers these young women made,” said Krylova, whose talk is based on a chapter from her upcoming book on women in combat.

According to Soviet records and memoirs written by men and women, Krylova said women between the ages of 17 and 27 turned out to be quick learners in the martial arts and became effective as bomber and fighter pilots, snipers, machine-gunners, anti-aircraft fighters and combat engineers, as well as platoon and company commanders.

“Women snipers, because they were extremely well trained, were often much more effective than male snipers,” Krylova said. “The snipers who graduated from the Central Women’s Sniper School in Moscow proudly reported over 11,000 Germans soldiers killed.”


The female sniper Liudmila Pavlichenko, who in a year and a half killed 309 Germans, was as well-known as the famous male sniper Vladimir Pchelintsev, said Krylova, the Hunt Assistant Professor of History at Duke.

“If we look at comparable male and female night bomber regiments, the women’s regiment proved superior to the male regiment in terms of their statistics of accuracy of target-hitting,” she said. “In the Fourth Air Force Division, for example, the female night bombers were known for extreme accuracy of their hits and they were assigned to the most demanding missions.


“The conclusion that one could come to is that, as far as combat performance and combat endurance are concerned, the variations within sexes are very wide and if we actually wanted to pick the best soldiers, then it would make sense to take the best out of those who are willing and best suited to fight. And, in that case, we would inevitably end up with a mixed group of men and women,” Krylova said.

“The Soviets derived those conclusions but they did not let women stay in the army,” she noted. “They demobilized women after World War II because they lost a lot of men and it seemed more urgent to have women out of the military giving birth than in the military as career officers.”

Krylova said that in contemporary debates the argument against women’s presence in the military is based on evidence that men “freak out and cannot fight together with women because, while in combat, they get disoriented and want to protect women instead of being combatants. The Soviet case is interesting because such reactions were indeed present during the first encounters between male and female combatants. But what the Soviet case also illustrates is how, over the four years of combat, male and female combatants managed to learn how to fight together. Even female platoon and company commanders were, in the end, accepted by male soldiers and other officers.

“The Soviet memoirs and archival documents tell many stories about overcoming gender-based stereotypes and hostility,” she said.

Soviestan, your opinions on women in the military are completely and utterly out of order. They are based on nothing but male chauvinist sentiment, not reason or experience. Women have fought in many wars across the world for thousands of years and have proved themselves in combat again and again.

At least my single reservation about submariners has logic behind it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military

Soviet military records from World War II contain evidence that women can be as effective front-line soldiers as men, says Duke University historian Anna Krylova.

Krylova explores the mass volunteering of Soviet young women for combat in 1941, their integration into the armed forces and the implications that their performance have on gender roles in the military and Soviet society at large. The talk, “Beyond Gender: Women in Combat at the Soviet Front, 1930s-1940s,” will be from 4 to 6 p.m. at the National Humanities Center in Durham and is part of the Triangle Seminar in the History of the Military, War, and Society.

Krylova, who grew up in Moscow before coming to the United States to pursue a Ph.D. in history, said 800,000 women served in the Soviet military during WWII, 350,000 of them in combat.

“My goal is to make these numbers speak, to find out what kind of cultural and psychological developments in Stalinist society prepared young women to volunteer for the front and what kind of soldiers these young women made,” said Krylova, whose talk is based on a chapter from her upcoming book on women in combat.

According to Soviet records and memoirs written by men and women, Krylova said women between the ages of 17 and 27 turned out to be quick learners in the martial arts and became effective as bomber and fighter pilots, snipers, machine-gunners, anti-aircraft fighters and combat engineers, as well as platoon and company commanders.

“Women snipers, because they were extremely well trained, were often much more effective than male snipers,” Krylova said. “The snipers who graduated from the Central Women’s Sniper School in Moscow proudly reported over 11,000 Germans soldiers killed.”


The female sniper Liudmila Pavlichenko, who in a year and a half killed 309 Germans, was as well-known as the famous male sniper Vladimir Pchelintsev, said Krylova, the Hunt Assistant Professor of History at Duke.

“If we look at comparable male and female night bomber regiments, the women’s regiment proved superior to the male regiment in terms of their statistics of accuracy of target-hitting,” she said. “In the Fourth Air Force Division, for example, the female night bombers were known for extreme accuracy of their hits and they were assigned to the most demanding missions.


“The conclusion that one could come to is that, as far as combat performance and combat endurance are concerned, the variations within sexes are very wide and if we actually wanted to pick the best soldiers, then it would make sense to take the best out of those who are willing and best suited to fight. And, in that case, we would inevitably end up with a mixed group of men and women,” Krylova said.

“The Soviets derived those conclusions but they did not let women stay in the army,” she noted. “They demobilized women after World War II because they lost a lot of men and it seemed more urgent to have women out of the military giving birth than in the military as career officers.”

Krylova said that in contemporary debates the argument against women’s presence in the military is based on evidence that men “freak out and cannot fight together with women because, while in combat, they get disoriented and want to protect women instead of being combatants. The Soviet case is interesting because such reactions were indeed present during the first encounters between male and female combatants. But what the Soviet case also illustrates is how, over the four years of combat, male and female combatants managed to learn how to fight together. Even female platoon and company commanders were, in the end, accepted by male soldiers and other officers.

“The Soviet memoirs and archival documents tell many stories about overcoming gender-based stereotypes and hostility,” she said.

source? at any rate, is the Soviet Union still around? No? Maybe that should tell you something.

source? at any rate, is the Soviet Union still around? No? Maybe that should tell you something.

Are you a complete fool? The Soviet Union collapsed due to economic recession, not because of invasion or war.

source? at any rate, is the Soviet Union still around? No? Maybe that should tell you something.

The source is the woman named in the post. She's a professor at Duke University who has written extensively on the subject.

source? at any rate, is the Soviet Union still around? No? Maybe that should tell you something.

That the Soviet Union no longer exists? What does women being in the Soviet Military have anything to do with it not being around anymore? Oh yea!! NOTHING!!!!

source? at any rate, is the Soviet Union still around? No? Maybe that should tell you something.

I think I begin to see the problem here. I don't think Soviestan's problems in the military have anything to do with perception of women being incompetent. He's afraid that if you arm women and train them as a fighting team, they'll use their weapons and training to deal with certain men. He's afraid he might be one of them. After all, it's in the best interests of men who want to suppress women to keep them helpless.

The source is the woman named in the post. She's a professor at Duke University who has written extensively on the subject.

Ah yes, but she's a woman, so clearly her opinion doesn't matter. :rolleyes:

source? at any rate, is the Soviet Union still around? No? Maybe that should tell you something.

Is the Roman Empire around? Wasn't their army entirely composed of men? Shouldn't that tell you something?

Is Nazi Germany still around? Wasn't their army entirely composed of men? Shouldn't that tell you something?

Is the Ottoman Empire still around? Wasn't their army entirely composed of men? Shouldn't that tell you something?

Should I continue, or do you see how foolish your argument is?

I don't fully understand why this is even a topic of contention.

source? at any rate, is the Soviet Union still around? No? Maybe that should tell you something.

They had women in the military from 1930 to 1945, roughly, it would seem. According to the source provided.

They, ehm, you know, won WWII. Along with the allies.

They then removed women and...

...they aren't around today anymore :o

So the logic is simple: remove women from the equation and you lose.

source? at any rate, is the Soviet Union still around? No? Maybe that should tell you something.

Are you saying women being in the Soviet military somehow caused the Soviet Union to collapse?

Are you saying women being in the Soviet military somehow caused the Soviet Union to collapse?

Of course! The women were so busy playing army with the big boys they forgot to buy ladies magazines and hair products, therefore causing the entire Soviet economy to collapse! It is so obvious that I don't understand why it wasn't pointed out before.

*shrug* don't know, don't really care. Look I'll say it again, I'm not trying to make a case one way or t'other I really don't care.
You're arguing a position, no? It may not be directly related to your OP, but Bottle has refuted a lot of the points you've made. Whether you care or not is irrelevant.

The bottomline is men make better soliders, men are supposed to fight, not women. They are stronger, faster and generally speaking have a greater desire to fight than women. This is just how we were made, there are very real differences between the genders whether you want to admit it or not. So I don't really care what your nurse friend can do in a hospital, its not combat so save me the false analogies.
These are nothing but generalisations, and do not apply to exceptions. Some women are strong, fast and willing to engage in combat. There is no "supposed" about it. If females are less aggressive, it is because of assumed gender roles they have taken over the aeons plus social conditioning. Gender roles are not carved in stone - and vary depending on species and society. This may come as a shock, but it is expected that within 100 years top female athletes will be able to outrun male ones. Closing up women in houses so that they do nothing but churn out babies is what keeps them frail and vulnerable. Which I suppose is fine, if that is your aim; depraved, but fine.

He's a muslim. He feels that women should stay at home and only at home and wear burkhas and not go anywhere unless a male relative goes with them.
All the more revealing of his ignorance is the fact that he considers himself some sort of moderate.

Of course! The women were so busy playing army with the big boys they forgot to buy ladies magazines and hair products, therefore causing the entire Soviet economy to collapse! It is so obvious that I don't understand why it wasn't pointed out before.

*shakes head in disbelief*

I suppose that when you take this thought a bit further, he is further suggesting that letting women fight in the American military will lead to our economic collapse and our Union dissolving into multiple countries just like the USSR. Clearly we need to avoid making the same mistake the Soviets did or women will be the cause of our ruin!

*shakes head in disbelief*

I suppose that when you take this thought a bit further, he is further suggesting that letting women fight in the American military will lead to our economic collapse and our Union dissolving into multiple countries just like the USSR. Clearly we need to avoid making the same mistake the Soviets did or women will be the cause of our ruin!

When you can't get laid, you find that there are many things you can blame women for. Like dog poop on the sidewalk. Why don't women clean that up?

When you can't get laid, you find that there are many things you can blame women for. Like dog poop on the sidewalk. Why don't women clean that up?

And boy bands. A large percentage of their audiences are female and not one of them bothered to bring along a revolver or something and spare us all.

They had women in the military from 1930 to 1945, roughly, it would seem. According to the source provided.

They, ehm, you know, won WWII. Along with the allies.

They then removed women and...

...they aren't around today anymore :o

So the logic is simple: remove women from the equation and you lose

Correlation and causation, people! Come on! Having women in your army isn't an automatic win button for a war, and not having women in your army doesn't cause your nation to completely dissolve, and trying to imply otherwise is as intellectually dishonest as Soviestan's argument.

These are nothing but generalisations, and do not apply to exceptions. Some women are strong, fast and willing to engage in combat. There is no "supposed" about it. If females are less aggressive, it is because of assumed gender roles they have taken over the aeons plus social conditioning. Gender roles are not carved in stone
for the most part, they are.

- and vary depending on species and society. This may come as a shock, but it is expected that within 100 years top female athletes will be able to outrun male ones.

source?
All the more revealing of his ignorance is the fact that he considers himself some sort of moderate.

I am

I'm so happy you and Neesika actually noticed. But it's temporary, I'm using the public library computer. it. Still no internet at home.

Oh well. :( Good to see you haven't left permanently, though. :)

If I was over in Iraq I would love nothing more than to have woman fighting beside me...;)

Don't. See. Why. Not.

That's also what I said about gay marriage though...

for the most part, they are

Only in the middle east, and I'm sorry but most of Hammarabi's code is slightly out of date.

for the most part, they are.
Which does not explain variations within societies and over time and between species and even within species. The fact that so many of them result from conditioning gives little credence to their naturalcy.

source?
I read it in a newspaper a year go. I'll see if I can find the source online tomorrow.

I am
From what I've seen, I have no reason to believe so.

Well, after reading through the 'don't ask, don't tell' thread, I decided to open up another post in regards to women in the military.

In the CF, women are allowed in all trades, no restrictions. We have women infanteers, women armoured troopers, women gunners in our artillery units (Captain Nichola Goddard was seriving as a forward observation observer out of a hatch on a LAV calling in arty fire when she was killed by an RPG) and have no problems with it.

I was wondering, what are your opinions on having women in the military?

CF?

Anyway, yes, women should be allowed to serve in the military. A woman can pull a trigger just as well as a man can. Every argument I've ever heard against women serving always sounds dated, anachronistic. "Blah blah blah, men are physically stronger, blah blah." That's cause they're usually physically bigger in generally. Women may actually have better endurance. For example, the marathon times of both males and females have been improving, but women's have been improving at a much faster rate and will soon pass men up in marathon times. Men and women are equal, just different. We should end discrimination and all that. Seems pretty clear to me.

I wouldn't have a problem with women in front line roles only if they were segregated and held to male PT standards.

Correlation and causation, people! Come on! Having women in your army isn't an automatic win button for a war, and not having women in your army doesn't cause your nation to completely dissolve, and trying to imply otherwise is as intellectually dishonest as Soviestan's argument.

I know, I know. I was just using Sovietstans own argument. He asked "And are they around today?" (slightly paraphrased) to which I said "well, no, but they removed their women from the army first"

for the most part, they are.

No.

for the most part, they are.


If you accept that a womans only function is to give birth then there is some truth in your statement. Otherwise it is bull.


And hey - have you provided a SINGLE source to back up any of your claims?



Anyway - A part of this thread reminded me of a TV show I saw a couple of years ago where they got a bunch of fitness enthuasists and put them through SAS training (it was slightly watered down...). A part of the training is a test on their ability to resist interrogation following their 'capture' on Dartmor. This process lasted several days and involved physical and mental torture: being forced to hold uncomfortable positions for hours in an environment with loud white-noise following a couple of days slep deprivation. The 'pass' was that they could give out no more than six pieces of information. Any information - name, home town, hobbies, even the location they were captured whhich the interrigators obviously knew already. The basis of this was that the first step in an interrogation if to get some form of communication going, from there you can break the person - so they train them not to et to that stage.

Where am I goig with this? Well - one of the participants was a woman. She had performed ok in the fitness tests but when it came to resisting interrogation she managed an outstanding performance. So much so that the commander in charge of it made a point of stating that he and all the SAS men involved in the interrogation were "very impressed". When an SAS instructor comments on national television that he and the SAS - one of the most respected special forces units in the world - is "very impressed" with you - you know you're good.

Women should be allowed to serve however they want (Medicine, Support), as long as it is not in any of the Combat Arms branches, or in Special Operations.



And not all of US Special Forces were based on SAS, US Army Green Berets are based on the US OSS of WW2. SEALs are based on the Frogmen, and Rangers are based on Colonial Rogers Rangers of the French and Indian Wars.


Women should be able to serve anywhere she wishes too, Medicine, Support, Combat & Special Forces etc ...

for the most part, they are.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

I served in the Israelite army back in the nineties in 37th squad. We only had one woman in the entire brigade!

She was a better soldier than most of the men I knew until she disappeared in -99..

for the most part, they are.


source? :rolleyes:

I think the question is, what kind of men send women to fight for them?

I think the question is, what kind of men send women to fight for them?

What kind of man wouldn't fight alongside a woman who is his equal in everything but anatomy?

The kind of man who is uncontrollably afraid of the possibility of being shown up. Basically the kind of man who lacks the discipline to be in the armed forces to begin with.

Sounds like a good test of worth and discipline, then. Doesn't it?

What kind of man wouldn't fight alongside a woman who is his equal in everything but anatomy?

The kind of man who is uncontrollably afraid of the possibility of being shown up. Basically the kind of man who lacks the discipline to be in the armed forces to begin with.

I just had a crazy thought - Arab armies using women for commando ops. Why women?

Answer: you could probably hide a few assault rifles under a full body veil.

source? :rolleyes:

What Allah wants for mankind is enough of a source for me.

What Allah wants for mankind is enough of a source for me.

Unfortunately for you, your interpretation of what Allah wants (or is it your Imam's interpretation of what Allah wants?) is not what the rest of us want.

Unfortunately for you, your interpretation of what Allah wants (or is it your Imam's interpretation of what Allah wants?) is not what the rest of us want.

Aye.

On an unrelated note, is it a good or bad sign that I saw this thread and thought "Oh, not this shit again"?

Aye.

On an unrelated note, is it a good or bad sign that I saw this thread and thought "Oh, not this shit again"?

To be honest I haven't seen a thread about women and the military in a while.

To be honest I haven't seen a thread about women and the military in a while.

I was referring more to the continued use of faith as a reason for the way something should be without the application of any actual...you know...reasoning.

This is actually the first women in the military thread I've seen, due to my short tenure here, but still, pretty annoying.

What Allah wants for mankind is enough of a source for me.

Epic fail.

The whole reason why the ‘women tend to have lower physical strength than men’ is an issue because (at least in the US) the military has to use ‘gender norming’ so that enough females can pass the physical requirements. This is an issue, not because of the gender itself, but because the requirement for them not to turn the vast majority of women away forces them to accept less capable women.

My brother’s unit had a woman they nicknamed the turtle. She could barely lift her pack and equipment, much less function in combat. If she tripped or lost her balance during a march, she would fall over and only be able to crawl around like a turtle, unable to stand up or even roll over onto her stomach if on her back. She was not treated very well by anyone because they all knew if they were in combat, where their very life depends on the person next to them, she was the last person they wanted to have to rely upon.

This is why women not being as strong is a problem. It isn't the gender itself, but the need to lower the standards so more women would be accepted.

Make standards gender-blind, and I have no problem with women in the military.

When it comes to women on submarines… I am very iffy. When you get that many people crammed into such a small space for many months at a stretch, being politically correct has to take a backseat to keeping everyone functioning properly. Mixed gender submarines would likely have a much higher incidence of sexual harassment and jealousy issues – this is no slight against submariners, just that even nice rats get a little scrappy when you cram enough of them into a tiny box.

Part of the problem is one of basic logistics – segregation of sleeping arrangements and bathing facilities is expensive and difficult on a submarine (where space is at a premium). While I do not see a need for separation of sleeping quarters, I am also very liberal in my views of sexuality; including creating a new MOS for prostitution to keep the soldiers happy when deployed (keeps them from getting involved with the locals and drastically reduces the likelihood of disease). Come to think of it… there was a mining company in Africa that finally decided that sexually transmitted diseases among its workers (from the prostitutes in a nearby town) was costing it a lot of lost productivity, so they built a brothel for their workers and made sure all the girls were clean with strict condom rules and regular testing.

if one meets the physical requirements to be a soldier one should be allowed to be a soldier. If one does not, one should not.

Like any other job, a qualified person is a qualified person.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I think the question is, what kind of men send women to fight for them?

Israelis?

What Allah wants for mankind is enough of a source for me.

You do know that you live in a world where you must relate to other people in terms that they understand and in a way that makes rational sense? Because if you don't realize that or don't find such a thing necessary, why bother being on a forum where you distance people more than you draw them to your cause.

What Allah wants for mankind is enough of a source for me.

Why?

we all know the female of the species is more deadly then the male.

the only problem is "duty bunk", and for this i think the military needs to be more up-front about what they are getting themselves into.

=^^=
.../\...

As long as women have to pass the same tests as men, there is no reason why they shouldn't do the same jobs.

I read it in a newspaper a year go. I'll see if I can find the source online tomorrow.


Actually, since this comes from multiple sources, it should be believed. I learned the same thing (well, actually it was more specifically marathon times) in Female Phsyiology at college.

Actually, since this comes from multiple sources, it should be believed. I learned the same thing (well, actually it was more specifically marathon times) in Female Phsyiology at college.
I forgot about that. Yes, I believe it was for marathon times, but I'm not sure. I think the article was released by the AP. I'll try find it.

Why?

Did you miss the "Because Allah said so" in there?

I think the question is, what kind of men send women to fight for them?
Um, sane ones?

I hate to tell you this, men, but you can't fight every battle in the world. You are one person. You will, in some way, have to send somebody else to fight some battle for you some time.

In some cases, the person who can fight that other battle for you is male. In other cases, the person who can fight that other battle for you is female. Either way, somebody else is fighting for you. The fact that they may have one particular type of genitals does not change the value of their life, or the value of what they are doing for you. Have the decency to at least show some tiny respect for their life and their sacrifice. Or, if you can't manage that, at least do them the courtesy of closing your mouth before you insult them.

I forgot about that. Yes, I believe it was for marathon times, but I'm not sure. I think the article was released by the AP. I'll try find it.

We even got a little graph. Both men and women's marathon times have been getting faster, but the rate at which women's is doing so is much higher.

Women are smaller on average and their bones break more easily.
They bleed out of a hole in their bodies every months, causing increased logistic burdens.
Oh yeah they can get pregnant, incapacitating them for months at a time.
Women tend to be less aggressive than men due to hormonal differences.

"Tend to be", "on average"... it's those magic words again. Sure, men do tend to be more suitable for the military life. That doesn't mean that some aren't, or that some women are.

And on monthlies... bleeding is a logistical burden now? Every time somebody gets hit and the red stuff starts flowing, they need to pull up a truck and carefully catch all the blood to avoid ruining those pristine Bahgdad streets? Sure, it's taking the girls out of action for a while. Like sleep. And eating. And being wounded. And the psychological breakdown caused by such a stressful activity as combat.

If you want soldiers available 100% of the time, Human beings aren't for you.

Also, pregnancy. There are two possibilities. A)Consenting: Horrific breakdown of discipline for both parties. B) Rape. Attrocious breackdown of discipline for the guilty party.

This is rather like saying "We can't pay our soldiers! It might get stolen!". Punish the guilty.

Also, gentlemen don't sit on their asses while women are out getting shot at. I would hate to see America sending women off to get killed like some godless communist country.

I've addressed this before. Here are my exact words:


Thought experiment:

Private Jim Miller is your best friend. You grew up together, were educated together, enlisted together. He's a rifleman.

Private Joe Baker is, to you, everything wrong with the world. You hate him more than you do the enemy. He's the fire-team SAW guy.

The enemy tried to get the jump on you, but your platoon commander was too smart for him and has flank guards well posted to cover any attack routes. Unfortunately, something is interfering with radio contact and the enemy are advancing in your area. The squad is sending a runner back to HQ, but you need to hold the enemy off for him. To do this, you desperately need the suppressive capability of the SAW.

Two enemy soldiers have taken aim, one at Jim and one at Joe. You, the fire-team designated marksman, are the only one in a position to save one of them. One. You've only got the one gun. Who do you help?

If you answered "Jim", the company and the civilian refugees it was escorting out of the warzone are slaughtered and mutilated.

Now, do that again, but with differant characters. Private Jane Miller is a girl. Private Joe Baker is a guy. You don't hate him, he can even occupy the same slot as Jim, but he's a guy. Who do you save?

If you answered "Jane", well..."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0319/p99s01-duts.html

After reading this through (rather than skimming it and jumping to conclusions which is a bad habit of mine :( ) I think its better they're not enlisted.

In Iraq, the problem has allegedly grown worse. Col. Janis Karpinski (who was demoted from brigadier general for her role in the Abu Ghraib scandal) alleged last year that three women died of dehydration in 2003 because they were afraid to go to the latrines at night for fear of being sexually assaulted, and so did not drink any water late in the day. The Army calls the charges "unsubstantiated." Colonel Karpinski, however, is sticking to her charges.

Benedict reports in the above article in Salon that the most egregious case of sexual assault in the US military concerns Spc. Suzanne Swift. Ms. Swift alleges that she was sexually assaulted by a commanding officer, and harassed by two others, in Iraq in 2004. When Swift finally "broke ranks and told" of her situation she was treated as a "traitor" by her fellow soldiers. During a leave at home she went AWOL rather than return to face the soldiers that she said had allegedly assaulted her. The Army court-martialed her, stripped her of her rank, and said she needed to spend two more years in the military, during which she may be redeployed. Benedict says that Swift's assaulters received only "a reprimanding letter."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0319/p99s01-duts.html

After reading this through (rather than skimming it and jumping to conclusions which is a bad habit of mine :( ) I think its better they're not enlisted.

So we punish the victims instead of the criminals, eh?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0319/p99s01-duts.html

After reading this through (rather than skimming it and jumping to conclusions which is a bad habit of mine :( ) I think its better they're not enlisted.

concerning the first "article",
fears of being sexually assaulted is not being assaulted.

Concerning the second. that is why rape victims (if she was raped) needs to go to the hospital and get the evidence before it's gone. if the assault is more butt slapping and fondling... then talking with the JAG for advice and handling it with more care would probably result in an inquest and even the perp getting duly punnished. but since I don't know how she "broke ranks" I can only speculate and I am not placing blame on anyone.

So we punish the victims instead of the criminals, eh?
Standard practice for our culture. If women are assaulted or abused, then our 'solution' is to take freedoms away from women. If women are raped when they go to the bar, then our 'solution' is to say that women shouldn't go to bars or drink alcohol. If women are raped while walking home, our 'solution' is to tell them that they shouldn't be walking the streets by themselves as if they had the right or something. If women are raped in the military, our 'solution' is to tell women that they shouldn't enlist, while we continue to give guns and deadly training to their rapists.

Just more lovely examples of how all women are automatically assumed to have sub-human status that places them lower on the totem pole than criminals. God bless America!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0319/p99s01-duts.html

After reading this through (rather than skimming it and jumping to conclusions which is a bad habit of mine :( ) I think its better they're not enlisted.

Yeah, obviously if you get mugged and murdered on the streets it's your own fault for not staying at home right? I mean, why don't we give the criminals a break. Sheez.

I think the question is, what kind of men send women to fight for them?

More like what kind of a society bars half of its population from participating in such political decisions?

More like what kind of a society bars half of its population from participating in such political decisions?
Why, a MANLY one!

Standard practice for our culture. If women are assaulted or abused, then our 'solution' is to take freedoms away from women. If women are raped when they go to the bar, then our 'solution' is to say that women shouldn't go to bars or drink alcohol. If women are raped while walking home, our 'solution' is to tell them that they shouldn't be walking the streets by themselves as if they had the right or something. If women are raped in the military, our 'solution' is to tell women that they shouldn't enlist, while we continue to give guns and deadly training to their rapists.

Just more lovely examples of how all women are automatically assumed to have sub-human status that places them lower on the totem pole than criminals. God bless America!

Abuse, rape ect will happen. But I highly doubt the incidence would increase. My MOS was designated combat support, so I worked with the infantry and cav. If I can serve in that capacity it doesn't make any sense that I couldn't serve in combat arms.

But like I said before. Men and women should be held to the same PT standards.

Just more lovely examples of how all women are automatically assumed to have sub-human status that places them lower on the totem pole than criminals. God bless America!

Now now, you know that this kind of idiocy is found in (almost?) every country in the world.

There, doesn't that make you feel better? ;) :p