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

Lucylastic -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:03:19 PM)
I am SO Evil grinsssss

calamitysandra -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:05:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi To the OP: I think women should have the choice to go into combat, but I don't understand why they would want to. I would guess for the same reasons men do.

rulemylife -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:14:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IceDemeter 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... Considering you have no profile available, I'm just curious about who or what you are. Could a 6'0", 170 lb woman outperform a 5'6", 130 lb man?

Jaybeee -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:15:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer 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. Oh, you can replicate that by threatening to withdraw her Macy's storecard. quote: 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. . And yet over 90% of combat pilots, gunners etc are male. quote: 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 Thanks, I'll pass that on to the White House so they can alter the recruitment policy. A swift victory will cost fewer lives in the long run. I'll be sure to mention you for the credit. [8\|]

Jaybeee -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:17:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: IceDemeter 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... Considering you have no profile available, I'm just curious about who or what you are. Could a 6'0", 170 lb woman outperform a 5'6", 130 lb man? In running up her storecard debts, yes, in spades.

rulemylife -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:18:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I am SO Evil grinsssss Now where is the g-string? You promised me it would be back after Christmas.

Lucylastic -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:20:55 PM)
You've heard of tease and denial???

Icarys -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:21:18 PM)
I take it you're a fucking idiot. I said very few, asshat. Not all.

rulemylife -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:24:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys I take it you're a fucking idiot. I said very few, asshat. Not all. Well, thank you for that intelligent and well-phrased response. And by the way, in my response I highlighted the fact you said very few. But let's not let details get in the way of your temper tantrum.

IceDemeter -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:27:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Considering you have no profile available, I'm just curious about who or what you are. Could a 6'0", 170 lb woman outperform a 5'6", 130 lb man? Sorry! I have no profile up right now since I'm happily taken and just hang out on the forums now and again - and don't like dealing with the mail when I have it up. I'm just an old sub wench from Canada, who has an opinion. I really should leave it open when I'm posting though - I like to check out who's talking too... Thanks for the reminder! As for your question - well, I don't think it's answerable as it stands. Could she outperform him physically if he's in pefect shape and she's more fat than muscle? What are the requirements of the job? If the primary requirements are speed, agility, and flexibility, then it's most likely that he will out-perform her. If they are both in good physical shape and the primary requirement of the job is lifting strength, then she might out-perform him. The job itself sets the requirements - certain abilities will be needed in order to successfully perform the duties of the job. The gender of the person is irrelevent so long as they have those abilities.

rulemylife -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:27:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic You've heard of tease and denial??? You are evil.

Icarys -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:30:57 PM)
quote: 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. Ya know you go on using testosterone talk to try and belittle a guy and come right behind it trying your own brand of tough talk. What a riot. I love it when women talk about getting viscous. Reverse machismo looks much more retarded when coming from the female gender. I don't think you have clue one about being savage. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet my life on it.

Icarys -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:32:03 PM)
quote: Well, thank you for that intelligent and well-phrased response. Your welcome. I figured you've heard that before and it would be easier for you to understand.

Politesub53 -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:34:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic You've heard of tease and denial??? Care to elaborate.......lol

Icarys -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:34:43 PM)
quote: And yet over 90% of combat pilots, gunners etc are male. Do you actually think women couldn't fly a plane?

RapierFugue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:37:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: And yet over 90% of combat pilots, gunners etc are male. Do you actually think women couldn't fly a plane? "I take it you're a fucking idiot. I said very few, asshat. Not all." ;)

rulemylife -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:39:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: 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. Ya know you go on using testosterone talk to try and belittle a guy and come right behind it trying your own brand of tough talk. What a riot. I love it when women talk about getting viscous. Reverse machismo looks much more retarded when coming from the female gender. I don't think you have clue one about being savage. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet my life on it. Wow. I've seen and heard some guys who have an inferiority complex but you win the prize. Is that why you have the Neo thing going on, so you can pretend you are something you're not?

Icarys -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:41:35 PM)
quote: I've seen and heard some guys who have an inferiority complex but you win the prize. If anything..It's a superiority complex not inferiority ;)

RapierFugue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:44:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys I don't think you have clue one about being savage. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet my life on it. I'm not exactly n easy-touch, streetfight-wise, and even I can think of 2 women I know who could leave me in a bloodied heap. And I don't mean in formal, martial arts competition. I mean a no-holds-barred, knock-down, gouge-eyes streetfight. Personally, if women can meet the physical requirements of military entrance test (and I accept that fewer women will be able to than men, but still, some should make it through) then I don't see any physical reason why they shouldn't, if they choose to, serve.

Icarys -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 4:44:35 PM)
Yes yes..Facetious...Yada Yada. I've got an idea for the sword...Wanna try? ;)

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875