RE: Women in combat

RE: Women in combat (Full Version)

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

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 12:40:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy FR... I can only imagine the howls and vitriol that would come down if a male senior infantry officer offered a "joke" about women on the battlefield being more effective if they were PMS'ing. Can the push a button on an Attack Sub? Maybe. Do they have the strength and reflexes to fly combat fighter planes at high Gs? I guess there could be one or two. Women have been flying combat aircraft in the u.s.military...didn't you get the memo? quote: Would they be able to fight equally and as effective against men in hand to hand combat, in fire fights, attack raids and the like? NO... they can not! The n.vietnamese women seemed to do pretty well against the arvn and the u.s. infantry. quote: What a bunch of PC and symbolic crap this is! How so?

kalikshama -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 1:11:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Notsweet quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: Is anyone prepared for the day when a woman is taken prisoner by an enemy force ? I say this policy is PC and not a good for all involved. What's your point? Are you taking the position that women get raped and men don't? This has already happened. If I can find citation, I'll come back and put it on. Jessica Lynch. She was raped. For some reason, my cut and paste isn't working, but there was one more recently, too. She was a flight surgeon, as I recall. Was not a rape, but a sexual assault while she was prisoner. My point was that it is disingenuous to exclude women from combat because they might get taken prisoner and be raped because men get raped too. Women in the military are actually at far greater risk of being sexually assaulted by men wearing the same uniform. You missed that monster thread we had about this last year.

Aylee -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 1:13:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee It is not the danger that is the problem. It is the muscles needed that are the problem. As a feminist, this has been hard to deal with, but, guys can handle bigger loads. And our current Army demands that. For one thing, most women might not, but a percentage will. The military recruit an individual on the basis of that given individual's merits, presumably - they don't recruit any designated demographic. It doesn't seem fair to discriminate against an entire sex just because most couldn't cut it for the military; just as it wouldn't seem fair to debar, say, men with Indian heritage because these happen, on average, to be smaller and more lightly built than white men. Most people of either sex couldn't (or wouldn't) cut it for the military. For another - how much, really, is humans' aggressive power about their physical strength, these days? It became markedly less way back when we humans started using wooden clubs and spears instead of our bare hands. Surely nowadays, especially, humans' fighting strengths are located in their brains rather than their muscles? What percentage? ( I mean, I already linked to a study where women of above average height and weight couldn't cut it. . . so what percentage of women?) And should we change all the rules because we can find two or three women that are different from the norm? And why should we do that? Aggression? I have not written about aggression. I have written about the fact that women are not as strong (over all) as males and so cannot carry the same loads or do the same jobs (loading a mortar). The modern military is NOT about brains. Loads have NOT gotten lighter. How much can you hump? Well. . . guys can hump more. The modern soldier has to carry a LOT! One more comment. . . why in the hell should the Army be "fair" anyways?

Aylee -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 1:15:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Israel has women in combat teams, and those ladies are some bad ass bitches. No, no they are not.

Notsweet -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 1:16:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama My point was that it is disingenuous to exclude women from combat because they might get taken prisoner and be raped because men get raped too. Women in the military are actually at far greater risk of being sexually assaulted by men wearing the same uniform. You missed that monster thread we had about this last year. I'm sorry, wasn't responding specifically to your post, but yes, and that's happened too. Most recent one I can think of wasn't even a soldier. It was the U.s. Ambassador to Libya. And yes, the stats say exactly what you said there--military women more likely to be raped by their fellow soldiers than the enemy combatants. Very, very sad. I had a friend who died a couple of years ago. She was in her nineties, and was one of the first test pilots. There was a small group of women during WWII who were sent to test fly. It's the coolest story, and they got NO recognition until after she had died. That's a great story to look up.

bobbicuckold -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 1:27:47 PM)
Hello, i had to write and say i was depolyed Twice while in the Guard and Served rhight along with woman in combat,, they are just as good as any Man, and some got killed in line of duty,that means that they were on road potrole with there unit and got hit with IED's or was providing cover fire and got Killed just like a would have,, I dont know where the gov. is just now saying Woman can serve in combat now..all this come from a Army Vet that served right along side Woman in combat.. 2 tours from 2003 till 2009..

Notsweet -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 1:30:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bobbicuckold Hello, i had to write and say i was depolyed Twice while in the Guard and Served rhight along with woman in combat,, they are just as good as any Man, and some got killed in line of duty,that means that they were on road potrole with there unit and got hit with IED's or was providing cover fire and got Killed just like a would have,, I dont know where the gov. is just now saying Woman can serve in combat now..all this come from a Army Vet that served right along side Woman in combat.. 2 tours from 2003 till 2009.. Thank you for your service.

kiwisub12 -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 2:15:03 PM)
bobbi - welcome to the boards. And yes, i seem to remember on the news accounts of women being vulnerable to attack "over there". Hell, if they are in reach of mortars, they are in a combat position all ready. as for physical ability. Nope, women overall aren't as strong as men. And if things came down to a physical, hand-to-hand fight, they wouldn't do as well, but how often does that happen any more. What i see on the news is gun battle , not fisticuffs, and women are as capable of firing a gun as the next guy. I don't think there is going to be a huge rush of women to fill combat positions, but i do think for the most part, they are quite capable of it. Having said that, i haven't been in the military, so my opinion is just that.

PeonForHer -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 3:05:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee What percentage? ( I mean, I already linked to a study where women of above average height and weight couldn't cut it. . . so what percentage of women?) And should we change all the rules because we can find two or three women that are different from the norm? And why should we do that? It makes sense to do it if the military can get the best people for the job and if it's economic for them to do so. If Miss Superbrain Amazon turns up for an interview at the same time as Mr Peabrain Mouse, then it should be possible for the the interviewer to take on Miss Amazon. It doesn't matter if most women are smaller and not as bright as Miss Amazon, or that most men are bigger and brighter than Mr Mouse. The generic groups don't matter - it's only these two individuals that count. If it's uneconomic, though, to change the rules (say, if a submarine's kitted out only to take males), then it makes no sense to take Miss Superbrain. quote: The modern military is NOT about brains. Loads have NOT gotten lighter. How much can you hump? Well. . . guys can hump more. The modern soldier has to carry a LOT! Again, it'd take an unusually strong woman. But, if such a strong woman exists, and wants to join up, why should she be stopped just because she's got the wrong tackle between her legs? Unless - again - it's uneconomic. quote: One more comment. . . why in the hell should the Army be "fair" anyways? Because being fair might be better for the military. I don't suppose the General cares as much about 'social experiments' as he cares about getting the best personnel. Since I'm not a military man, still less an American military man, I have no horse in this race. The 'politically correct' stuff isn't all that relevant to my view on this. To make my point a bit clearer: in the UK, motor insurers used to charge less to females. Females, as a group, have fewer accidents and cost insurers less. This carried on for decades and was only outlawed quite recently. I thought that it was fair in all senses that it was outlawed. Groups (gender-specific or otherwise) don't matter; only individuals do. Mr Quiet and Careful Young Man isn't likely to be the same sort of motorist as Mr HotShot. At bottom is what's called 'the ecological fallacy'. Just because most members of group X exhibit a particular quality, it doesn't mean that any individual example of group X in front of you will exhibit those characteristics.

DomKen -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 3:22:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Notsweet quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama My point was that it is disingenuous to exclude women from combat because they might get taken prisoner and be raped because men get raped too. Women in the military are actually at far greater risk of being sexually assaulted by men wearing the same uniform. You missed that monster thread we had about this last year. I'm sorry, wasn't responding specifically to your post, but yes, and that's happened too. Most recent one I can think of wasn't even a soldier. It was the U.s. Ambassador to Libya. Ambassador Stevens was not raped.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 3:31:28 PM)
Just a note on the notion of physical superiority in terms of hand-to-hand combat, martial arts, etc. In modern warfare, the objective is not to run around the battlefield smashing and bashing the enemy troops into submission by pure brute strength and higher levels of testosterone (Rambo movies and the warrior ethos notwithstanding). The rationale for modern military combatives is as a force multiplier... something anyone in combat should thoroughly understand.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 3:46:43 PM)
Orly??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oketz quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Israel has women in combat teams, and those ladies are some bad ass bitches. No, no they are not.

Notsweet -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 3:51:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Ambassador Stevens was not raped. I trust my information, which says that he was.

Nosathro -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 6:45:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: ShaharThorne I am a veteran and was trained in shooting an M-60. This was back in the 80s though. If Israel has female combat soldiers, so can the USA. I was a comm rat anyway so not only did I have to carry a 80 pound knapsack, I had to make sure I can lift 75 pound radios. I weight trained myself to keep fit. I also was the only female comm rat. The other females in my company were medics or paperpushers. Do we face the manpower shortage that forced that step by Israel. Of course not. The Russians in WWII did it when they started running out of men, The German population in 1939 was some 69,850, Russia popluation was 165.5 million it is true that on a per centage bases Russia had more deaths some 8 million to 13 million...but I don't think the ran out of men....

jlf1961 -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 7:01:43 PM)
1939, German territory and population encompassed 586,126 square kilometers and 79.7 million people, according to the 1939 census.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 7:34:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen News reports indicate Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defence, is lifting the ban on women in most combat roles in the US military. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/panetta-opens-combat-roles-women Will this cause the end of western civilization or usher in a new golden age? Fuck the Golden Age, fuck Western Civilization issues.... I'm too fucking old to be in combat but....anytime I'm in a foxhole with a chic....I'm gonna try and figure out a way to fuck her. Women do NOT belong in combat!!!!

MyEnemy -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 8:58:04 PM)
There are pt standards in the army, a certain number of pushups and situps are required in 2 minutes and a 2 mile run in a certain time is required to pass. The amount of pushups and situps is significantly lower and the run time is significantly slower for women. Not only that but a passing score army wide is officially 180 (60 in each category) in the infantry you are expected to get at least a 280 and if you don't you will be doing remedial pt in all your free time until you do. Before woman can become infantry they need to meet the same physical requirements as the rest of us. No lower pt standard and no lower pt scores.

Nosathro -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 10:23:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 1939, German territory and population encompassed 586,126 square kilometers and 79.7 million people, according to the 1939 census. 1939... Germany (within 1937 borders, Danzig & Memel Territory) 69,850,000

graceadieu -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 10:43:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kiwisub12 as for physical ability. Nope, women overall aren't as strong as men. And if things came down to a physical, hand-to-hand fight, they wouldn't do as well, but how often does that happen any more. What i see on the news is gun battle , not fisticuffs, and women are as capable of firing a gun as the next guy. And even in hand-to-hand situations, skill and speed can make up for strength. Women will generally have to train harder to be as effective, but they can be.

MyEnemy -> RE: Women in combat (1/24/2013 10:47:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: kiwisub12 as for physical ability. Nope, women overall aren't as strong as men. And if things came down to a physical, hand-to-hand fight, they wouldn't do as well, but how often does that happen any more. What i see on the news is gun battle , not fisticuffs, and women are as capable of firing a gun as the next guy. And even in hand-to-hand situations, skill and speed can make up for strength. Women will generally have to train harder to be as effective, but they can be. That's ridiculous and completely irrelevant to whether woman should be allowed in combat. They should be held to the same standard, not an imaginary video game one.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875