RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms

RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Jaybeee -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 1:51:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee When force must be applied, you don't run to Mummy's coat-tail's. You go straight to the Daddy. Dude, you never met my Mom. You don't know for a fact, I've been to your country many times!

rulemylife -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 1:58:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TexasRogue My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that. This was really in the TMI category.

RapierFugue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 2:13:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TexasRogue My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that. This was really in the TMI category. The Romans (at certain times in their history) and Spartans approved of gay relationships in their armies, as they thought the men would fight more fiercely if they were defending their lovers, as well as improving unit cohesion. Since, unit for unit, they were some of the best troops of their respective eras, it’s a tricky one to argue. The Greeks even had an entirely gay battalion at one stage, the Theban "Sacred Band", comprising 150 gay male "couples", who were recognised at the time as one of the fiercest fighting corps of their day. The modern-day attitude towards homosexuality in the military is just that - a modern-day construct. Don't have nightmares :)

lazarus1983 -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 2:21:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TexasRogue My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that. This was really in the TMI category. The Romans (at certain times in their history) and Spartans approved of gay relationships in their armies, as they thought the men would fight more fiercely if they were defending their lovers, as well as improving unit cohesion. Since, unit for unit, they were some of the best troops of their respective eras, it’s a tricky one to argue. The Greeks even had an entirely gay battalion at one stage, the Theban "Sacred Band", comprising 150 gay male "couples", who were recognised at the time as one of the fiercest fighting corps of their day. The modern-day attitude towards homosexuality in the military is just that - a modern-day construct. Don't have nightmares :) Those soldiers didn't come from societies with deeply ingrained anti-gay sentiments. The service members in the US do. Many people blame the military for these sentiments, when in truth they originated from our society. And unfortunately the military doesn't produce mindless killing machines without bias or prejudice.

RapierFugue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 2:26:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lazarus1983 Those soldiers didn't come from societies with deeply ingrained anti-gay sentiments. The service members in the US do. Many people blame the military for these sentiments, when in truth they originated from our society. And unfortunately the military doesn't produce mindless killing machines without bias or prejudice. Yes it's odd how many ancient, so-called "primitive" societies are more developed than our own. I'm reminded of a lovely line from (IIRC) Russell Howard, when some bishop or other blamed the various hurricanes and floods of late on the rise of "self-indulgence and homosexuality" ... ... to which Russell said "Eh? You sure mate? All the ancient Greeks did was eat, drink and bum each other all day long and they had smashing weather" :)

rulemylife -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 2:30:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TexasRogue My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that. This was really in the TMI category. The Romans (at certain times in their history) and Spartans approved of gay relationships in their armies, as they thought the men would fight more fiercely if they were defending their lovers, as well as improving unit cohesion. Since, unit for unit, they were some of the best troops of their respective eras, it’s a tricky one to argue. The Greeks even had an entirely gay battalion at one stage, the Theban "Sacred Band", comprising 150 gay male "couples", who were recognised at the time as one of the fiercest fighting corps of their day. The modern-day attitude towards homosexuality in the military is just that - a modern-day construct. Don't have nightmares :) I certainly appreciate the history lesson Mr. Professor. I just didn't need to hear about guys taking dumps and nudging each other with their morning wood.

RapierFugue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 2:34:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I just didn't need to hear about guys taking dumps and nudging each other with their morning wood. <shrug> Compared to some of the stuff that gets discussed on CM it was pretty tame.

hlen5 -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 2:38:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub [......To the OP....When I was in the Army, the main reason stated for women not being in direct combat roles was men would stop to help them, due to their teachings before Uncle Sam got ahold of them. Even though that was a couple of decades ago, I think it probably holds true still in many ways. Fuck, nearly three decades.............htf did that happen? That was my experience too. I agree where the f did that time go ('80-'84)??

Icarys -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 2:43:46 PM)
I know this is going to be very unpopular to say but that's never stopped me before. Having women in situations where physical strength could easily play a part is and has always been an issue for me. I also had a problem with women firefighters. Simply put, there are limitations that nature has built into each gender. Lowering the standard by accepting higher risk for critical situations isn't progress. Can women shoot guns? Sure. I know for sure there are excellent women crack shots. Can they think on their feet and follow orders. Absolutely. Can they do everything that a man can do. No. No more than we can do everything women can do. I wouldn't trust a women like the one in that picture to be able to drag the average sized man from harms way or carry him on her back to safety. Very few women that I've met in my lifetime could do that in a pinch. Are we willing to sacrifice set security for political correctness? I'm sure the military won't have much of a problem with it being that they need more bodies...It takes a crapload of warriors to build a global empire. Speaking from an already standardized safety standpoint, of course.

Jaybeee -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 3:06:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lazarus1983 quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TexasRogue My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that. This was really in the TMI category. The Romans (at certain times in their history) and Spartans approved of gay relationships in their armies, as they thought the men would fight more fiercely if they were defending their lovers, as well as improving unit cohesion. Since, unit for unit, they were some of the best troops of their respective eras, it’s a tricky one to argue. The Greeks even had an entirely gay battalion at one stage, the Theban "Sacred Band", comprising 150 gay male "couples", who were recognised at the time as one of the fiercest fighting corps of their day. The modern-day attitude towards homosexuality in the military is just that - a modern-day construct. Don't have nightmares :) Those soldiers didn't come from societies with deeply ingrained anti-gay sentiments. The service members in the US do. Many people blame the military for these sentiments, when in truth they originated from our society. And unfortunately the military doesn't produce mindless killing machines without bias or prejudice. Obviously, because prejudice, ie pre-judgement is conditioned out of them to stop them questioning the legitimacy of their missions.

rulemylife -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 3:07:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys I know this is going to be very unpopular to say but that's never stopped me before. Having women in situations where physical strength could easily play a part is and has always been an issue for me. I also had a problem with women firefighters. Simply put, there are limitations that nature has built into each gender. Lowering the standard by accepting higher risk for critical situations isn't progress. Can women shoot guns? Sure. I know for sure there are excellent women crack shots. Can they think on their feet and follow orders. Absolutely. Can they do everything that a man can do. No. No more than we can do everything women can do. I wouldn't trust a women like the one in that picture to be able to drag the average sized man from harms way or carry him on her back to safety. Very few women that I've met in my lifetime could do that in a pinch. Are we willing to sacrifice set security for political correctness? I take it you don't get out much. Female Bodybuilding Montage

TexasRogue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 3:08:31 PM)
LMAO! That's the reality. Imagine how much worse it is when you have to live it as opposed to merely reading about it on a message board!

lazarus1983 -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 3:25:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee quote: ORIGINAL: lazarus1983 quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TexasRogue My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that. This was really in the TMI category. The Romans (at certain times in their history) and Spartans approved of gay relationships in their armies, as they thought the men would fight more fiercely if they were defending their lovers, as well as improving unit cohesion. Since, unit for unit, they were some of the best troops of their respective eras, it’s a tricky one to argue. The Greeks even had an entirely gay battalion at one stage, the Theban "Sacred Band", comprising 150 gay male "couples", who were recognised at the time as one of the fiercest fighting corps of their day. The modern-day attitude towards homosexuality in the military is just that - a modern-day construct. Don't have nightmares :) Those soldiers didn't come from societies with deeply ingrained anti-gay sentiments. The service members in the US do. Many people blame the military for these sentiments, when in truth they originated from our society. And unfortunately the military doesn't produce mindless killing machines without bias or prejudice. Obviously, because prejudice, ie pre-judgement is conditioned out of them to stop them questioning the legitimacy of their missions. I do my best to avoid you, as from what I can tell you're little more than an attention-seeking mongoloid. So please, refrain from babbling about which you have ZERO idea.

Lucylastic -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 3:29:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle There's prolly quite a few Dommes on this site who would delight in disputing your silly claim with you personally Jaybee [:D] I wouldnt piss on him if he was on fire.. Id just add more fuel. He isnt worth disputing...truly:)

IceDemeter -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 3:34:15 PM)
Fast reply ... I didn't think it was TMI - in my opinion it was looking at politically incorrect but potentially important issues when considering women in front-line combat, particularly infantry. The idea of basic physical strength should be fine, so long as the basic requirements are not changed and are applied across the board, then a woman who is physically incapable of doing the job would be rejected the same as a man would. So - not an issue. There are now meds to stop menstrual cycles, so dealing with that in the field is no longer an issue. Where it could become an issue is in making the use of these meds a requirement to serving in the infantry. If they aren't compulsory, how do you deal with a menstrual period while in combat? "Cover me Bob - I need to change my tampon" just doesn't sound like a good plan... The lack of privacy or the potential embarrassment of having an unintentional sleep encounter while in a huddle for warmth - well, the ladies would be just as capable of putting that aside and dealing with it from the prospective of a "soldier" as any man, so I don't see that as much of an issue. BUT - from a purely physical standpoint, how to deal with urination? From stories told by friends who have served in combat, it is not uncommon to have no choice but to urinate while running, or to just roll on their side and go while in position. Neither of these are options for women - not without extra movement that would either slow them down when they don't have time to, or that might give away their position. Going in their pants is an option, but it would definitely lead to chafing / rashes / possible infection --- essentially making that woman a liability to her comrades. I don't really see carrying a supply of Depends along as being a viable option... There are devices that can be used to allow for standing urination for women, but can they be fitted while running? Can they be worn for hours or days on end without either causing physical damage or slowing the person down tremendously? For all that I believe that there are many individual women who have the physical and mental strength and capability to serve beside the men in the field, I can understand that there are a multitude of potential issues like this which make it a difficult choice. For those of us who haven't been in combat, we may not understand what it is truly like in the field, and the seemingly small things that could potentially make a big difference. I don't see this as being a situation of discrimation or of treating women as "less" - I see it as being a situation where all of the potential little issues need to be worked out first, so as not to add any further dangers to those who are in the field of fire...

Lucylastic -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 3:34:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TexasRogue My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that. This was really in the TMI category. speak for yaself!!

lazarus1983 -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 3:45:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IceDemeter Fast reply ... I didn't think it was TMI - in my opinion it was looking at politically incorrect but potentially important issues when considering women in front-line combat, particularly infantry. The idea of basic physical strength should be fine, so long as the basic requirements are not changed and are applied across the board, then a woman who is physically incapable of doing the job would be rejected the same as a man would. So - not an issue. There are now meds to stop menstrual cycles, so dealing with that in the field is no longer an issue. Where it could become an issue is in making the use of these meds a requirement to serving in the infantry. If they aren't compulsory, how do you deal with a menstrual period while in combat? "Cover me Bob - I need to change my tampon" just doesn't sound like a good plan... The lack of privacy or the potential embarrassment of having an unintentional sleep encounter while in a huddle for warmth - well, the ladies would be just as capable of putting that aside and dealing with it from the prospective of a "soldier" as any man, so I don't see that as much of an issue. BUT - from a purely physical standpoint, how to deal with urination? From stories told by friends who have served in combat, it is not uncommon to have no choice but to urinate while running, or to just roll on their side and go while in position. Neither of these are options for women - not without extra movement that would either slow them down when they don't have time to, or that might give away their position. Going in their pants is an option, but it would definitely lead to chafing / rashes / possible infection --- essentially making that woman a liability to her comrades. I don't really see carrying a supply of Depends along as being a viable option... There are devices that can be used to allow for standing urination for women, but can they be fitted while running? Can they be worn for hours or days on end without either causing physical damage or slowing the person down tremendously? For all that I believe that there are many individual women who have the physical and mental strength and capability to serve beside the men in the field, I can understand that there are a multitude of potential issues like this which make it a difficult choice. For those of us who haven't been in combat, we may not understand what it is truly like in the field, and the seemingly small things that could potentially make a big difference. I don't see this as being a situation of discrimation or of treating women as "less" - I see it as being a situation where all of the potential little issues need to be worked out first, so as not to add any further dangers to those who are in the field of fire... Physical fitness standards have always been lower for women. Is it your intention to raise them, or leave them as is?

LadyNTrainer -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 3:49:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee This would be sweet. Watching the government trying and failing to fill 48.7% of front-line positions with women because most of them are too...what's that word? Oh yes, COWARDLY to fight. My, don't we have a lot of testosterone today. Threaten a woman's children and you are likely to see a savage, no-holds-barred response that makes male fighting look gentle and humane playing. There are potentially problematic areas of service where more upper body strength is required than most women have. There are other areas where smaller size and greater dexterity and hand-eye coordination is a major asset and upper body strength not really a factor. Female snipers, combat pilots and tank drivers would do quite well, I expect. Women aren't generally wired to go around looking for trouble, but they are wired to deal decisively with trouble. Sometimes in ways that are likely to make men blanch. Rudyard Kipling said it best in regards to the female of the species. When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride, He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside. But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male. When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man, He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can. But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male. When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws, They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws. 'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male. Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say, For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away; But when hunter meets with husband, each confirms the other's tale— The female of the species is more deadly than the male. She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest. These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells— She, the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

rulemylife -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 3:58:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TexasRogue My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that. This was really in the TMI category. speak for yaself!! That's only because you're a pervert. Thank God I don't let people like you corrupt my morals.

IceDemeter -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:02:48 PM)
I personally think that physical standards need to be set for the job - the gender of the person applying for the job should be irrelevent. Are the women who are now meeting a lowered standard still capable of fulfilling all of the duties of the position? If so, then the initial standards for men were set higher than the requirements of the job, and the standards should be dropped for both men and women. If the lowered standard for women means that they are not capable of fulfilling all of the duties of the position, then they obviously need to meet a higher standard in order to do the job. There is no circumstance where it is acceptable to expect another to regularly have to assist in duties that should be accomplished by one person who meets the standards correctly set to the job. I find it inconceivable that there should be two sets of physical standards - the job, whether it be soldier or firefighter or whatever, will not be successfully accomplished by anyone who is physically incapable of doing it. That physical requirement doesn't change based on gender. I guess I'm just better at common-sense than political correctness...

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875