Women in combat?

[100thlurker]

Yes I know, the not so hot topic of women in combat... YOU choose (note poll above). Do you support women in the MILITARY weilding weapons and directly involved in COMBAT. I myself think that if they can handle it then let them...

[GrimTerror]

Of course women should be able to go to combat. It would be a little difficult to fight them on the battlefield though. Infactuation maybe? Unless they are really butch and bald type i'd say fighting women could bring some moral dilemma for men in combat.

Break tradition, thats all i can say.

"I myself think that if they can handle it then let them..."

I couldn't agree more!

[psycho42b]

Wait? I thought some already were fighting in combat...

[Beef]

If they know how to hold a weapon and fire it and fight, why not let them in? I may be stereotypical but they might freak out more often than males do. Maybe they don't, but its just the mind that is relating to that, not the body.

[UnHoly-Assassin]

Women wanted equal rights, and they got equal rights. Now they can also serve equally to defend those rights.

[bekmeka]

there are individual women out there who won't freak on the field, and there are men who will. although i do agree that women probably freak more than men. i think if a woman can meet the same standards as a man, then she should be allowed in combat. but no lowering standards in order to have equal representation, because that's just stupid and would make our army suck.

[Spartan-II]

I beleive that they should be able to serve in the military, but there are certain things that need to be done that aren't exactly suited for women.

Would a woman have the upper body strength to hual a 240 lb. man from a burning tank?

Would she have the strength to fight a man hand-to-hand? (More a question of skill.)

Would she be able to endure as long as a man? (Physical prowess.)

There are a few other things, but I don't know them right now.

[FallenLord]

The number of women who can satisfy the military's physical requirements for men and who wish to participate in combat is too insignificant to bother making exceptions. Though as I don't actually believe in equal treatment for men and women, I could support providing women with special, degraded standards. (That might just be slightly behind the times, however.)

Until combat is reduced to piloting remote drones from the safety of aircraft carriers or bunkers, women's involvement in combat should be zilch.

However, I do think the NFL should be forced to fill a quota for women linebackers. In fact, I can hardly recall why men and women don't compete in sports to begin with...

[SpeedyWorm1]

Even though i'm a boy, women should still be allowed in combat. I don't think it should matter as your VOLUNTEERING for the service anyway. If anyone wants to serve their country they should go right ahead. ALSO, I know personally that guys go CRAZY if there's no women around.

[loads_of_fun]

Wait? I thought some already were fighting in combat...you and me both

[Yoda]

A good way to answer this question is to ask why women don't enter combat now. They never have - and in ancient times, i.e. Greece, it could be because dying a gruesome death in combat was an honourable thing to do, and that the women should be at home with the children instead. Of course that idea doesn't exist anymore.

Now the whole female-shouldn't-fight-in-combat would be a female-superiority thing, kind of like the idea that they should be given lifeboats first. Most women would be able to cope with the physical requirements as much as men could. I know some women my age who are probably stronger than I am. So they should be allowed to go into combat and even be conscripted.

[kongurous]

I think that if they want to fight, go ahead and let women fight. An able-bodied person, regardless of gender, is important to any military, so I only see limiting the playing field to men only as a hinderance, not a benefit.

Oh, and Spartan-II, that question about women hauling a 240lb man from a burning vehicle is a stupid question. Of course a woman could do that, a woman can do pretty much anything a man can, except feel the pain of getting kick in the testicles.

[FallenLord]

Most women would be able to cope with the physical requirements as much as men could.women hauling a 240lb man from a burning vehicle is a stupid question. Of course a woman could do thatReality check?

It evidently isn't common knowledge that the military already uses degraded standards for women's physical fitness because women fail men's tests.

The military is one of the few organizations where ignoring facts actually has serious negative consequences. Be it women's physical inadequacy or magical WMDs.

...

Discussions like this invariable revolve around the insignificantly small population of women who were born with too much testosterone. Therefore, for even a pretense of fairness to exist, these beyond-the-belle-curve girls should be compared to equally extreme examples of men. Like the physical elite of sports. In which case women are, naturally, physically outclassed again. (This may be why women and men don't actually compete in sports.)

[Dark_Viper]

I agree to this.. as my Girlfriend.. a Marine MP in the states.. who is 6' 3" and who is now an officer.. has done outstanding in her prelimerary tests..
She also teaches new recruits how to fire some of the more heavy/deadly firearms....
sure she hasnt gone to IRAQ(thank god) But as an MP she polices throughout her base.. basically your basic Cop or SWAT.. with more firepower and less rules

[EvilEggCracker]

Ripley, anyone?

[Neo]

Reality check?

It evidently isn't common knowledge that the military already uses degraded standards for women's physical fitness because women fail men's tests.

The military is one of the few organizations where ignoring facts actually has serious negative consequences. Be it women's physical inadequacy or magical WMDs.

...

Discussions like this invariable revolve around the insignificantly small population of women who were born with too much testosterone. Therefore, for even a pretense of fairness to exist, these beyond-the-belle-curve girls should be compared to equally extreme examples of men. Like the physical elite of sports. In which case women are, naturally, physically outclassed again. (This may be why women and men don't actually compete in sports.)
I am kind of tired of reading about your opinions and beliefs on the matter -- can you please provide some proof about the factual differences between men and women both physical and mental?

You seem to just be making all these assumptions and stuff, which is rather annoying to read. You make it seem as if every women is a weak thing that has to be treated differently...

So that also means that all men are dumber then women?

-Neo

[100thlurker]

Who's in the military FallenLord. You or Skippy? Skippy IS in the military so he probably know more...

[FallenLord]

I am kind of tired of reading about your opinions and beliefs on the matterThis is an opinion poll where everyone else has stated their opinion. Funny place to single out someone and criticize their opinion just because it annoys you. (Isn't that called intolerance?) But luckily, you have an excuse: I have stated fact, not opinion! :)

A five second google produced:

http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?DocID=237

I'll quote a few of the more juicy portions...
Modern body armor alone weighs 25 pounds. This weight is proportionately more difficult to carry by female soldiers who are, on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance. Even in current non-combat training, women suffer debilitating bone stress fractures and other injuries at rates double those of men.To summarize an enormous body of well-documented evidence produced by physiologists in the U.S. and Britain, in close combat women do not have an “equal opportunity” to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive.Every attempt since the 1970s to establish single standards for men and women, commensurate with the demands of actual combat, has been discontinued or rendered meaningless due to political pressures from feminists and allies who demand that standards be adjusted, or gender-normed, so that female trainees can “succeed.” In various types of training, “equal effort” is equated with “equal results,” and group evaluations substitute for individual achievement scores. In some forms of physical training events that are more difficult for women are dropped in order to make training more “fair.” The resulting regimen is described as “equal” between men and women, even though it is less demanding for the men.Only a few female trainees are able to perform in physically demanding events at the same levels as average males, but policies must be based on the majority of average soldiers, not the exceptional few.Self-styled advocates of women’s interests insist that men and women be treated the same, even though women are at a disadvantage in combat environments.Now that I have leveraged my statements of fact with satisfactory proof, feel free to do "you know what." I don't mind. :)

...
Who's in the military FallenLord. You or Skippy? Skippy IS in the military so he probably know more...I'm sure all three of us can read the article.

[GrimTerror]

Perhaps Sexual attraction comes into this? Gays are in the minority, so love shouldn't be too much of a problem in the Armed forces (which is actually a bit out-dated, now that gays are allowed in the army.) Maybe women are kept out of some areas to keep men focused on themselves and combat rather than women, classic corn story.

I think that women should be put into a place where they can excel men, tactical positions, medical divisions maybe. If women can be put to use where they excel men, and men are put where they excel women, then the armed forces should work better as a whole.

It seems to be a fact now, that the general woman's body is not designed for combat so they should be accepted in area where the body is not needed so much. Off the battlefield you could say.

Then again, seeing as todays fights are fought with Guns and missiles. Iif a woman can use a gun, let her in the forces.

[Neo]

But how many females -- on average -- decide to join the military who have small bodys/poor physical conditoning?

I keep seeing 'on average' well does that really matter? Do they everage every female who enters the forces? Everyone from the ones doing technical stuff to the ones who want to be marines or navy seals?

What is the average male in the army?

Everyone is different, it seems condescending to claim that becuase some (Even a majority of) women are 'smaller' then men they shouldn't be put in combat situations -- So why not do the same for small males?

If a women proves herself then I say let them go into combat situations.

That entire article/faq seems to take an 'anti-stance' on women in combat. Like they keep saying the same things over and over and over again. Like the bit about eqaulity/special treatment -- they make it sound like every women who oins up wants special treatment -- what the hell?

CMR does not claim to speak for military women, but we do know that the views of the majority of enlisted women are not being heard.

Well this is the problem, Id rather here from an impartial, or unbiased source, or from female officers themselves.

Its easy to say that 'all' or a 'majoirty' shouldn't be, but last i checked not everyone goes to join the military, it usually takes a certain dedicated individual willing to sacrifice everything for thier country. If a women decides this is her route -- and can perform as well or better then any man, why should she be barred from combat experience becuase of the way other females may or may not handle it?

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

No, women shouldn't be in combat. They only add a dimension of weakness and complication that is completely unneeded.

Women are weaker than men, they're slower than men, and they're far less fit to engage in physical combat. Saying that there are some women that are faster than some men, etc is completely nullifed by the immediate analogy between machines.

That there are some exceptional street cars that can beat drag racing cars is true; that your average street car has any chance against your average drag racing car is overwhelmingly false.

Similarly, it puts women at undue risk. If you're staring at a line of soldiers, and you see a woman, whom would you challenge first? Where is the weak point? If they are captured, the odds of them being tortured (via rape, etc) are also extremely high.

There's no good reason to put them in combat other than to fulfill some fantasy of equality between the sexes that doesn't exist.

[Toucan]

You have to consider this from every side guys. Depending on the combat roll you have in mind effects my opinion greatly. If you mean the situation of Pilot of an airborne or armoured vehicle then why not, they can do the job as well.

If your talking infantry where a soldier could find themselves even having to fight with knives or even a sharp damn stick in the worst of situations then absolutely not, they not only reduce the strength of the fighting force by not being as strong as the men on the ground, but by the other male soldier's feeling obligated to watch there backs.
If you’re going to allow them in then you would have to consider them for conscription as well, witch would mean many unsuitable woman would be drafted.
The bottom line is there are many more men strong enough to do the job than women.
One woman taking on and beating 3 large strong marine's is some thing your only going to see in Hollywood, in real life, most women cannot defend themselves against even 1 man.
Now if the woman is able to pass every test men are expected to, sure why not, but there should be no case of tests being lightened for her, as IS the case in many workplace environments.

[Neo]

Not everyone women is the same, not every man is the same.

Why is it ok to exclude women who are 'weaker' and not men who are also weaker then the average?

-Neo

[EvilEggCracker]

I think women should be there, but only at base camps and the provide a... different role;)

[Toucan]

I think women should be there, but only at base camps and the provide a... different role;)

Then that would NOT be a combat role.

[EvilEggCracker]

It could be...It depends on the guy...

[Toucan]

I think women should be there, but only at base camps and the provide a... different role
It could be...It depends on the guy...
Make up your mind, are you talking about men or women.

[EvilEggCracker]

Im talking about busy jungle action!;)

[kongurous]

Im talking about busy jungle action!;)


That's uh... NOT ALLOWED IN BASIC TRAINING.

You're there to learn how to be an effective fighting machine, nothing else. I'd also prefer you keep such things to yourself, as this is the Intellectual Roundtable, not Moron Central.

[Toucan]

BAH, went straight over my head, silly of me to assume that everyone might take the IR seriously.
But Skippy is right, your a moron.

[FallenLord]

But how many females -- on average -- decide to join the military who have small bodys/poor physical conditoning?You're missing the fact that the average woman has a small body and poor physical conditioning (compared to men). What you want to know is how many large females of exceptional physical abilities want to join. And it would be more appropriate for you to find a source who answers that question.

I keep seeing 'on average' well does that really matter? Do they everage every female who enters the forces? Everyone from the ones doing technical stuff to the ones who want to be marines or navy seals?It's obvious that the averages are based on the women who take the physicals. If you don't take the physical, your data can't be included.

What is the average male in the army?...larger and stronger than the average female...? ;)

Everyone is different, it seems condescending to claim that becuase some (Even a majority of) women are 'smaller' then men they shouldn't be put in combat situations -- So why not do the same for small males?

Why is it ok to exclude women who are 'weaker' and not men who are also weaker then the average?What do you think happens when a man fails his physical? (Rhetorical.) Also, this is not a discussion about "weak" women. This is about the fact that the average woman is weaker than the average man. "Weak" women would have no chance whatsoever.

If a women proves herself then I say let them go into combat situations.

Its easy to say that 'all' or a 'majoirty' shouldn't be, but last i checked not everyone goes to join the military, it usually takes a certain dedicated individual willing to sacrifice everything for thier country. If a women decides this is her route -- and can perform as well or better then any man, why should she be barred from combat experience becuase of the way other females may or may not handle it?Why don't you do some clever research and find the percentage of women (who want combat) that can perform as well as men instead of asking question after question. Or you could read the rest of my post. :tup:

That entire article/faq seems to take an 'anti-stance' on women in combat.The scholars among us will focus more on the facts the article uses to back up the premise you so cleverly deduced.

Like they keep saying the same things over and over and over again. Like the bit about eqaulity/special treatment -- they make it sound like every women who oins up wants special treatment -- what the hell?Yeah, screw the feminists who pretend to speak for all women! NOT EVERY WOMEN AGREES WITH YOU, FEMINISTS. Tee-hehe! :devil:

Well this is the problem, Id rather here from an impartial, or unbiased source, or from female officers themselves.The article reads:Opinions of Military Women
Q: Why is CMR claiming to speak for military women—don’t they want to go into combat in order to earn promotions—including the position of Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff?
A: Outspoken female officers have led the political push for women in combat, but for decades, women have been promoted at rates equal to or faster than men. CMR does not claim to speak for military women, but we do know that the views of the majority of enlisted women are not being heard. According to the Army's own surveys over the past ten years, only 10% to 15% of enlisted women support involuntary combat assignments on the same basis as men. (See article posted on the CMR website, www.cmrlink.org.)
After 90% of enlisted women expressed opposition in the 2001 survey, the Army Research Institute simply stopped asking the question. Enlisted women outnumber female officers 5 to 1. Their opinions, and the best advice of combat experts, should not be disregarded just so that a future female officer can be appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.Outspoken female officers push for women in combat. You did hear from female officers. You also heard from enlisted women, but you probably didn't like what you heard.

So, guess what enlisted women want? 90% OPPOSE COMBAT ASSIGNMENTS.

So, anyway, the paragraph from which you take the quote is in answer to the misconception that military women want to go into combat. A misconception propagated by the political maneuvers of feminist officers who want to be promoted faster. The article's answer offers a reality check based on the fact that 90% of enlisted women (who outnumber the officers 5 to 1) don't want combat. You claim the "source" is biased and partial and doesn't represent women. The source is women. Uh, hello? I think the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" is warranted. Why didn't you read the article linked in the very same paragraph that further expounds on the fact that enlisted women don't want combat.

Did you decide to ignore their opinion? LOL. :(

Oh, and my favorite part. http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=204Clearly, dismal survey results on the women in combat issue presented a problem for Pentagon feminists. The answer to the problem was simple. If you don't want to hear the answer, stop asking the question.
In the year 2002, the ARI survey dropped the question about women in combat, and substituted less consequential queries, such as the opinions of military personnel regarding personal computers. The omission sends the clear message that Army officials simply do not care what men and women think about new combat rules under which they must live—and possibly die.Appalling. :cry:

...

Key Facts:

The average female soldier is 50% less strong than the average male soldier.

90% of enlisted women oppose combat assignment.

Feminists suck. (Just kidding, that's not a fact. :shiftyl: :shiftyr: )

[GenocideAlive]

Not everyone women is the same, not every man is the same.
EXCELLENT observation, Neo. You pass first grade. Now, please relate this to the discussion. As in, show me a woman that can pass PT FOR MALES and we'll discuss their willingness and suitability for combat.
Why is it ok to exclude women who are 'weaker' and not men who are also weaker then the average?
Heh. There are no "weaker then [sic] the average" men in combat, Neo.

[DragonPaladin]

In fact, I can hardly recall why men and women don't compete in sports to begin with...

Muscle mass, body structure...it's the way people were designed. Men were mainly hunters/gatherers so they did most of the physical labor while women tended the children and small jobs.

Note: Feminists, don't kill me.

And as a last note, guns make everyone equal. A woman with a gun can kill as well as a man with a gun.

[GenocideAlive]

And as a last note, guns make everyone equal. A woman with a gun can kill as well as a man with a gun.
False. Guns create more equality. They do not make equal.

[FallenLord]

And as a last note, guns make everyone equal. A woman with a gun can kill as well as a man with a gun.Inasmuch as the second sentence is true, infantry grunts lug around quite a bit more equipment than just a rifle.

[Chigro]

Yeah, if they can fight, then let them fight

[FallenLord]

Yeah, if they can fight, then let them fightO RLY?

(Apology for the painful irreverance to the IR.)

[Xenon]

When I joined the Army there was this MSG at boot camp who was female. Her name was MSG Petronas, and she could kick anyone's ass. She taught the hand-to-hand portion of our boot, and she was about 5'6" and maybe 120lbs. She demonstrated the fireman's carry on some fat sob who was about 300lbs. She used to outrun most of the platoon on our field marches carrying 90lbs of kit. If she wanted to fight in a combat position, god help the poor bastard who went up against her.

True, she's just one example and one individual. I can't speak for all the enlisted women, but I never met one who didn't know which end of a rifle was for killing (they both are --haha) or one who couldn't handle herself.

As far as empirical proof of women's unsuitability for combat, I don't think there exists any. Everyone likes to talk about averages, and head-to-head etc, but it's all a bunch of shit in the end because it isn't the size of the dog in the fight that matters, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

Who cares anyway? I mean really? Does it matter on the modern battlefield if the person pulling the trigger is a man or a woman?

[Neo]

Thanks Xenon, someone who knows what they are talking about, jesus.

Have I not said that if the female proves her self equal to or above a male in terms of physical... uhm training or w/e then let her go?

Or did I not come out and say that? Becuase I was pretty sure I mentioned that somewhere..

Just becuase 'average women' might be weaker doesn't mean all are, and like Xenon mentioned, if they are in the service to begin with, then I am pretty sure they know what thier getting into and that they've been preparing for it for awhile. I mean, I don't think you just wake up one day and decide to join the service that afternoon.

And the whole bit about rape/torture stuff when captured... So what about the men? Its ok for them to be tortured and/or possibly raped? These women joined the service to serve! Just like any man she has a right to sacrifice her well being, even her very life to protect her country!

...

But becuase she may not be able to carry all the equipment lets just keep her out of the combat areas.

-Neo

[frazz]

Does it matter on the modern battlefield if the person pulling the trigger is a man or a woman?
Yup. Soldiers carry a ton of gear. If I was in the miltary I wouldn't be able to shoot because I'm a stinking weakling.

[kongurous]

I whole-heartedly agree with ya, Xenon. Which is somethind I hope never to utter more than 10 times in my lifetime, no offense intended.

There is something I'd like to say, though. Do any of you know how low average is? If you're of average intelligience, do you have any idea how stupid that is? Average intelligience is getting mostly C's(or local equivalent)all throughout school. In Florida, that's getting between 70-79 scores out of 100 on tests and homework. On a 100-problem assignment, that's 21-30 questions you missed. Yeah, sound smart?

[GenocideAlive]

And the whole bit about rape/torture stuff when captured... So what about the men? Its ok for them to be tortured and/or possibly raped? These women joined the service to serve! Just like any man she has a right to sacrifice her well being, even her very life to protect her country!
You grossly misunderstand, and are vastly underestimating the amount of potential problems this could create on both the battlefield and back at home. All showers and facilities for soldiers are male. What about females? Double all sanitation facility sizes for females, or force them to take turns, thereby doubling the time it takes them to prepare. What to do about soldiers having sex? What to do if one of them pops up pregnant? Some of these are very sticky (no pun intended) issues that are simplified quickly by the "no women" rule. There is so much they can do to contribute in non-infantry roles, it's pretty much unnecessary, and 90% don't want combat anyway.

On the "torture" note, you could posit that men are regularly sexually assaulted in torture, but any potential for males is pretty much an assurance for females. Not only that, it will be much more extensive and much more scarring.

While a Christian woman is repeatedly raped for 10 hr. periods, and she is finally freed or released and comes up pregnant, what to do? Abort the baby, violate her religion, or keep a lifelong reminder of her marathon brutalization, causing possible permanent mental damage? Either way, in this society, an abortion is something a woman will be made to never forget.

While a man can be raped for the sake of sadism, even sadism gets boring. Between a garrison of soldiers, sexual gratification never gets boring.

Edit: Skippy, "average" can't and never will be "low". It's "average". Look up "average", please.

[GrimTerror]

Wouldn't it cause morality problems in combat? As opposed to what Genocide said, maybe the males would be reluctant in shooting even an armed woman, because the stereotypical views are still strong today. Maybe male combatants on the same side would go out of their way to help a girl who had been shot in the leg instead of carrying on the fight. Don't get me wrong, i'm all for girls in combat, but i think it'd cause problems because of the natural attraction that occurs when "boy meets girl." Them guys must get pretty lonely without a bit of female company.

Which brings me to another question. is sex allowed in the army?

[FallenLord]

"Women who meet the physical requirements and who want to serve in combat should be allowed to do so." So claim the proponents of this view.

Reconcile that agenda with facts.
90% of enlisted women oppose combat involuntary combat assignments for women.77% of enlisted men oppose involuntary combat assignments for women.80% of female and male officers oppose involuntary combat assignments for women.Hypothetical "voluntary" combat assignments are not a workable option.74% of enlisted women oppose "voluntary" combat assignments for women.84% of enlisted men oppose "voluntary" combat assignments for women.71% of female officers oppose "voluntary" combat assignments for women.None of these figures reflected a groundswell of support for the feminist agenda being advocated by the former Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services.
It's particularly refreshing that even if you venture off into the laughable realm of pie-in-the-sky "voluntary" combat assignment, the vast majority of women still say no. (...is that the sound of people ignoring the truth?)

What can be necessarily deduced from these facts? Not all women who meet men's standards want to go into combat. Combat assignments for women means they would have to go, too. (Recall that there is no such thing as "voluntary" combat assignment.)

...but screw democracy, I guess. It's one thing to ram one's narrow-minded worldview down the throats of a minority, as bad as that is. But why stop there? You can just as easily ram your beliefs down the throats of the majority.

...

Xenon:

When I joined the Army there was this MSG at boot camp who was female. Her name was MSG Petronas, and she could kick anyone's ass. She taught the hand-to-hand portion of our boot, and she was about 5'6" and maybe 120lbs. She demonstrated the fireman's carry on some fat sob who was about 300lbs. She used to outrun most of the platoon on our field marches carrying 90lbs of kit. If she wanted to fight in a combat position, god help the poor bastard who went up against her.I thought you were going to say she supported women in combat. But you don't know? K.

True, she's just one example and one individual. I can't speak for all the enlisted women, but I never met one who didn't know which end of a rifle was for killing (they both are --haha) or one who couldn't handle herselfEnlisted women have spoken. 90% oppose combat. There you go. :tup:

As far as empirical proof of women's unsuitability for combat, I don't think there exists any. Everyone likes to talk about averages, and head-to-head etc but it's all a bunch of shit in the endYou may recognize that in order to ensure a minimum level of performance derived from each individual soldier, it is necessary to provide a standard for minimum performance. More than half of all women who attempted this standard failed pathetically. That's empirical, and can be deduced from women's average performance - the one you referred to as "shit." Here's two more things that are empirical: "Only a few female trainees are able to perform in physically demanding events at the same levels as average males, but policies must be based on the majority of average soldiers, not the exceptional few."

because it isn't the size of the dog in the fight that matters, it's the size of the fight in the dog.Much luck developing a DBZ-esque "power level sensor." Reality check: Performance tests do measure the "size of the fight in the dog." Or women, in this case.

Who cares anyway? I mean really? Does it matter on the modern battlefield if the person pulling the trigger is a man or a woman?The problem is that battles aren't limited to people pulling triggers.

...

skippy:

There is something I'd like to say, though. Do any of you know how low average is? If you're of average intelligience, do you have any idea how stupid that is? Average intelligience is getting mostly C's(or local equivalent)all throughout school. In Florida, that's getting between 70-79 scores out of 100 on tests and homework. On a 100-problem assignment, that's 21-30 questions you missed. Yeah, sound smart?Yes, the average women is incredibly weak. What exactly is your point?

[Xenon]

Xenon:

I thought you were going to say she supported women in combat. But you don't know? K.

My point wasn't about how many women support going into combat. If you read it again, you might get the point; but I'm not holding my breath on that one, you seem to be below average intelligence and all of your contentions seem to hinge upon one supposition that off of a poll which concluded that 90% of women oppose involuntary combat... here, I'll spell it out:

I don't care if women want to go into combat or not. I KNOW from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that any woman who passes boot camp is CAPABLE of COMBAT.


Enlisted women have spoken. 90% oppose combat. There you go.

Actually, you are a) misquoting, and b) placing all of your faith on one non-scientific poll. It's like me going down to the supermarket and asking how many people think your mother gives good head. It's irrelevant that 99% of people polled by me think that she does, because it isn't a scientific poll, and doesn't mean anything.


You may recognize that in order to ensure a minimum level of performance derived from each individual soldier, it is necessary to provide a standard for minimum performance. More than half of all women who attempted this standard failed pathetically. That's empirical, and can be deduced from women's average performance -

Empirical knowledge cannot be deduced. It is by its very nature empirical. Deduced reasoning is not empirical knowledge, and never will be.


Reality check: Performance tests do measure the "size of the fight in the dog." Or women, in this case.

The problem is that battles aren't limited to people pulling triggers.

Which proves my point that the women who pass basic training, aka "boot camp" are perfectly qualified to enter into combat situations. Our MSG teaching hand to hand combat was a woman... she was training, and kicking, men's asses on a daily basis.

Just so you know, my class size (boot camp) was 28 men and 4 women. Of that, only 9 men and 1 woman graduated. The rest washed out because they couldn't take the physical or mental pressures of boot camp.

[FallenLord]

My point wasn't about how many women support going into combat. If you read it again, you might get the point; but I'm not holding my breath on that on that oneWhen you finished up your example with the catch that "she's just one example and one individual," I assumed you realized your "point" was absolutely irrelevant to the discussion (as it is) and therefore concentrated on the only useful sentence in the paragraph.

you seem to be below average intelligence and all of your contentions seem to hinge upon one supposition that off of a poll which concluded that 90% of women oppose involuntary combat... here, I'll spell it out:If only I hadn't spelled out half a dozen more statistics. Why don't you read them? (And claiming that I "seem" to be below average intelligence? If I thought you actually believed that, I'd be hurt.)

Actually, you are a) misquoting, and b) placing all of your faith on one non-scientific poll. It's like me going down to the supermarket and asking how many people think your mother gives good head. It's irrelevant that 99% of people polled by me think that she does, because it isn't a scientific poll, and doesn't mean anything.First, you're incapable of showing that I misquoted, because I didn't. Second, claiming the poll is not scientific is a copout nearly worthy of *ehem*. Put some muscle behind that claim.

Empirical knowledge cannot be deduced. It is by its very nature empirical. Deduced reasoning is not empirical knowledge, and never will be.Empirical knowledge is typically "deduced" (or "derived," if you find that term less offensive) from empirical data. Data, for example, which shows that the average woman fails the male test. The statement that more than half of women fail the male test is therefore also empirical. Why waste my time and yours?

I KNOW from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that any woman who passes boot camp is CAPABLE of COMBAT.

Which proves my point that the women who pass basic training, aka "boot camp" are perfectly qualified to enter into combat situations. Our MSG teaching hand to hand combat was a woman... she was training, and kicking, men's asses on a daily basis.

Just so you know, my class size (boot camp) was 28 men and 4 women. Of that, only 9 men and 1 woman graduated. The rest washed out because they couldn't take the physical or mental pressures of boot camp.This is a perfect time for you to show a little good faith and confirm the existence of gender-norming, inferior requirements for women, and things of like nature. The whole truth can't be that bad, can it?

[kongurous]

Edit: Skippy, "average" can't and never will be "low". It's "average". Look up "average", please.

Please reread how I described average. In academics, a C is average. Guess what? A majority of students do not make a C. Average is in the middle, however, just because of that fact does not mean average can be the majority.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=average

Yes, the average women is incredibly weak. What exactly is your point?

See above.

[FallenLord]

Please reread how I described average. In academics, a C is average. Guess what? A majority of students do not make a C. Average is in the middle, however, just because of that fact does not mean average can be the majority.Statistics states that approximately 50% of the data will be below the mean and 50% will be above the mean. If your goal is higher than the mean, it is conclusive that a majority will not reach that goal.

And if you're familiar with the bell curve, you know that 68% of normally distributed data (as this data would be) will be located within 1 standard deviation on each side of the mean, and 95% will be located within 2 standard deviations. So although we don't know the standard deviation for women testing against men's physicals (I'll see about doing some more research on it), it stands perfectly well to reason that the majority is really quite large. This is coincident with the quote, "Only a few female trainees are able to perform in physically demanding events at the same levels as average males."

Though of course if you use gender-normed requirements (with which Xenon is assuredly familiar), the averages are probably very similar.

[Neo]

FallenLord do you have something against women?

You seem to claim often enough that women are weak and other such statements.

You keep bring up the 'majority' or the 'average' while the rest of us seem to be talking about those exceptional few (of which the army is made up of many).

The fact is that whether the women are thier in a combat fashoin or not is regardless -- a nurse on the front can just as easily be captured as could a female soldier.

You keep making these huge generalizations about women which is really rather odd, since I am pretty sure that the 'average' person in the military would be considered above average for the normal populous.

I also find it interesting that all these hypotheticals come up 'what if...' in terms of torture, capture, showering, etc...

Fallen have you actually met any women from the military? How do think they would take it if you called them weak?

-Neo

[Fred1000000]

I beleive that they should be able to serve in the military, but there are certain things that need to be done that aren't exactly suited for women.

Would a woman have the upper body strength to hual a 240 lb. man from a burning tank?

Would she have the strength to fight a man hand-to-hand? (More a question of skill.)

Would she be able to endure as long as a man? (Physical prowess.)

There are a few other things, but I don't know them right now.
Women are often more powerful and resourceful than men. They are stron mentally and pysically, as are all soilders. But women are just as equal in men. Women should be able to fight for freedom as well. If they want it, they should be able to. Women have just as many rights, if not more or a bit less.

[FallenLord]

FallenLord do you have something against women?That's pathetic. Uh, I mean, yes! I expect your redefined behavior towards me will now include (but not be limited to) attacking my opinions, ignoring and/or misinterpreting everything I say and generally treating me with the intellectual disrespect/deceit that I so thoroughly deserve.

You seem to claim often enough that women are weak and other such statements.Speaking the truth makes you a sexist? Oh. Wait. D'oh.

You keep bring up the 'majority' or the 'average' while the rest of us seem to be talking about those exceptional few (of which the army is made up of many).

You keep making these huge generalizations about women which is really rather odd, since I am pretty sure that the 'average' person in the military would be considered above average for the normal populous.All the details I have discussed refer only to members of the military. Don't you understand that? (I know you won't answer...but don't answer it anyway.)

I also find it interesting that all these hypotheticals come up 'what if...' in terms of torture, capture, showering, etc...I was going to opt for risque sarcasm. [/deadpan]

Fallen have you actually met any women from the military? How do think they would take it if you called them weak?I've been waiting for someone to vicariously threaten me with physical abuse from a time o' the month feminist bruiser who won't take any of my lip. You're close, but no cigar.

Ultimately, you have absolutely no interest in anything I say, so cut yourself a break and stop trolling me.

[GenocideAlive]

Women are often more powerful and resourceful than men. They are stron mentally and pysically, as are all soilders. But women are just as equal in men. Women should be able to fight for freedom as well. If they want it, they should be able to. Women have just as many rights, if not more or a bit less.
I think your retarded input actually harms the side you're attempting to defend. As though your contribution is a negative number. As though you're a fucking moron.
I also find it interesting that all these hypotheticals come up 'what if...' in terms of torture, capture, showering, etc...
What the fuck is hypothetical about it? You fight in a war, you have PoWs. There has been no major conflict in the past 100 years without PoWs, no "ifs", "ands", or "buts" about it. Torture has been an issue for the past 100 years as well, if Xenon's avy isn't a good enough indicator. And showering...yeah, I guess showering is hypothetical too. Could you please make it any more obvious that you have no reply and you're lamely trying to disregard multiple valid issues?

[Cyberspirit]

Aren't there general standards for military training ?

If he/she is tough, let him/her fight.
If he/she is resourceful, give him/her the mission.
If he/she is clear and farsighted, he/she would command.

What big difference does smoother skin or extra fats at the chest make to one's combative abilities ???

Besides, we live in an overpopulated world ( not much in the states but think of China and India). The old thinking that all women need to be protected because they are the ones who produce and raise children does not apply anymore.
Some women should be free from domestic responsibilites enough to take part in those " dangerous " activities usually carried out by men.

Yeah, I am a callous bastard. Go ahead give me a kick in the groin.

[FallenLord]

Aren't there general standards for military training ?Guess again. Better yet, read the the thread.

[Xenon]

The opponents of women doing combat in the military are all glossing over the fact that these women have passed basic training, and whether for good or for bad are capable and qualified to defend their homeland and kill the enemy.

This isn't an argument about whether or not the standards for passing the women are fair, or adjusted to allow women to pass easier. The military has already deemed women combat capable as soon as they pass basic training. Once you graduate, you are a soldier. Period. All soldiers are expected to fight, and if necessary die for their country.

Now, if you want to go and change the standards, make them harder so that less women can pass them, that's fine too --because the same women who are passing the current standards are going to pass the harder standards. They're tough, strong, intelligent women who will take what you dish out to them and give it back tenfold. Having standards of any sort just weed out the bottom. The weak links. Those who pass the current tests, if you tell them the new standards are higher will just raise themselves to pass those as well.

Personally, I am all for a standardized system. I think it should be a level playing field, and that there should be one standard of physical fitness for all soldiers male and female. That has nothing to do with the question though, which is: "Should women be allowed to go into combat?" and the answer must be "Yes. Every soldier should go into combat."

The standards of physical fitness are a different issue. They speak to the question of "Should women be allowed in the military?" which is a different question than "Should women be allowed to go into combat.". They're not the same.

[GenocideAlive]

The opponents of women doing combat in the military are all glossing over the fact that these women have passed basic training, and whether for good or for bad are capable and qualified to defend their homeland and kill the enemy.
I find it ironic that you introduce your argument with "glossing over", then pretty much gloss over the entirety of everyone's qualms with women in the military.

The fact of the matter is that they don't want to be in combat, they don't have to be in combat, and their being in combat will only further complicate it. There's one or two reasons to put women into combat zones, but they are contingent on cooperation and willingness; neither of which women the majority of females provide.

While you and anybody else can beat off to how some chick you knew was super tough and could "tenfold blah blah blah", the fact of the matter remains that the vast majority of females are unfit, unwilling, and unneeded. The only reason to put them into combat is because males want them there, which doesn't seem like "equality" to me.

[Kingscrab]

The fact of the matter is that they don't want to be in combat, they don't have to be in combat, and their being in combat will only further complicate it. There's one or two reasons to put women into combat zones, but they are contingent on cooperation and willingness; neither of which women the majority of females provide. What confuses me is how anyone who willingly joins the military even has the remotest ability to tell their superiors that they "don't want to be in combat." How does this hold ANY weight at all? You're in the military, you do as you're told... you don't say, "but i don't wanna fight!"

I've never been in the military, but here's my crude understanding:
1) You joined the army.
2) Superior commander says go fight here...
3) You fucking fight whether you like it or not.

Of course, if a superior commander deems it unwise to put women in a combat zone, then that's the comander's decision, but it just seems odd to me to use the argument that women "don't want to fight".

Isn't fighting what the military is designed to do?! :o

[GenocideAlive]

What confuses me is how anyone who willingly joins the military even has the remotest ability to tell their superiors that they "don't want to be in combat." How does this hold ANY weight at all? You're in the military, you do as you're told... you don't say, "but i don't wanna fight!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

If the overwhelming majority of your sex elects to act as a conscientious objector, then they'd be hard-pressed conscripting you into combat. They'd need to double the size of their military just to force their military to function as a military. When the question of their suitability is thrown into the equation, it only confirms the initial situation.

[Kingscrab]

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

If the overwhelming majority of your sex elects to act as a conscientious objector, then they'd be hard-pressed conscripting you into combat. They'd need to double the size of their military just to force their military to function as a military. When the question of their suitability is thrown into the equation, it only confirms the initial situation. I assumed we were discussing volunteer soldiers.

Can you point me to info in that link that references the male/female ratios of conscientious objectors? I could not find it. (I may not have looked hard enough though...)

[GrimTerror]

Will you guys just not get so worked up. I'm pretty sure there's some nasty flaming going on too, so just cool off already.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so not matter how many facts you come up with, no matter how many anecdotes, your opinion is only equally as valid as anyone else who wishes to express their opinion. Just discuss the topic rather than argue over it, and don't feel offended or thretened if someone goes against what you say. Be civilized people!

[GenocideAlive]

Will you guys just not get so worked up. I'm pretty sure there's some nasty flaming going on too, so just cool off already.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so not matter how many facts you come up with, no matter how many anecdotes, your opinion is only equally as valid as anyone else who wishes to express their opinion. Just discuss the topic rather than argue over it, and don't feel offended or thretened if someone goes against what you say. Be civilized people!
GTFO. This is the Intellectual Roundtable, your "opinion" is tested by fire here. This is NOT Member's Forum where we all hold hands and gasp in mock horror when someone curses. If you want to apply for a mod position, do so. Otherwise, the world already had a Ghandi, and unless you're drinking your piss you're already falling short. Stop spamming the IR with your dumb shit.
I assumed we were discussing volunteer soldiers.
I bring up conscientious objectors because I think it's a valid point in our discussion. There are certain sects of males that refuse direct combat because they don't believe in fighting, war, etc. whatever their reason is.

Equally, if the majority of females don't want to be involved in combat, how could we justifiably conscript them? I aquiesce that there are some who DO wish to be involved in direct combat, but if we can find jobs in the military for those who don't want to kill, why can't we find jobs for people that don't want to be exposed to the front lines?

Perhaps it's just a lame compromise, but I just see the risk/cost as deeply outweighing the benefits. Plus I am by and large sexist when it comes to females performing physical tasks.

[Kingscrab]

Equally, if the majority of females don't want to be involved in combat, how could we justifiably conscript them? I aquiesce that there are some who DO wish to be involved in direct combat, but if we can find jobs in the military for those who don't want to kill, why can't we find jobs for people that don't want to be exposed to the front lines? Fair enough. I think though, that no matter who you are, (man or woman) it's naive to think that you can join any branch of the military and expect to be exempt from certain duties based on gender. It seems like the rules of war are always changing based on circumstance. But perhaps i am straying from the topic...

[Xenon]

I also assumed we were talking about women who had already joined the army...

When it comes to conscription though, I think it is going to depend in large part upon many different variables. Like the size of your population, how dire the threat is, etc. I mean, the US doesn't currently have the draft, right? I would imagine that your opinion about whether or not women should defend the "country" is going to depend on how big the country is.

Let's say your country is around a million people, and a country 10 times your size has just invaded it. I bet you'd start handing the women guns pretty fast right?

I think it's irrelevant in large parts when you talk about America or Canada and the draft because we don't have the draft... so it's highly unlikely that women will be drafted.

For the sake of argument though, assuming US and Canada did have the draft, I would expect women to be drafted as well. If they're equal persons under the law, then they can equally live and die for the country too. Why should I go and die to save a bunch of women if they aren't ready to fight for it too?

If women are inferior to men physically, then we should put a one-standard test in place to weed out those too weak to fight. Having a two-tier testing system doesn't make sense, otherwise, you should also make a special test for obese people who want to serve their country too... you can't expect an obese person to do as many push-ups/sit-ups/chin-ups as a regular person, nor should they have to run as far or as fast right?

However, as it stands right now for enlisted women who joined the army voluntarily and passed basic training, they should be given whatever job that they're best at and where the need is the greatest.

[GrimTerror]

I don't need to apply for a damn modship to say what i want to. You damn as hell annoying Genocide. And just what the hell made you think i was directing it solely at you? Your self-centred attitude really tries my patience. Obviously if someone has a different opinion from you, you simply MUST take offence to it. What kind of uncivilized and retarded Bullshit is that?

[GenocideAlive]

For the sake of argument though, assuming US and Canada did have the draft, I would expect women to be drafted as well. If they're equal persons under the law, then they can equally live and die for the country too. Why should I go and die to save a bunch of women if they aren't ready to fight for it too?
...are you serious? If the war gets fucking bad enough, polygamy is going to be encouraged by the government. Soldiers will have "Sex Tours of Duty" or something else very catchy that rhymes with "Booty". That's why I'd go and risk death. All those religions promise that kind of shit in the afterlife. You have to conquer death anyway to get a piece of the action. Coincidence? I think not. SIGN. ME. UP.
I don't need to apply for a damn modship to say what i want to. You damn as hell annoying Genocide. And just what the hell made you think i was directing it solely at you? Your self-centred attitude really tries my patience. Obviously if someone has a different opinion from you, you simply MUST take offence to it. What kind of uncivilized and retarded Bullshit is that?
Honestly, I didn't even read the majority of this although I'm sure I can effectively summarize:

GT Posts = 2. GT Contribution to Discussion, IR, and General On-Topicyness: 0.

Drop dead.

[FallenLord]

I would be enthralled to read an actual example of a female soldier who wants to go into combat. The fact that I haven’t is either due to the ineptitude of the opposition or the fact that such soldiers don’t exist.

The real political battle concerns the forcing of women into combat assignments or “near” combat assignments. Such action remains strictly forbidden by Congress, yet the Army is trying to do it anyway. Women, by overwhelming majority, don’t want to be forced into combat. This is an undisputable fact.

Time to stop sounding like a propaganda spewing recruiter. If you’re going to force women into combat, the vast majority of whom are under-prepared and totally opposed – called it like it is.

Xenon:

This isn't an argument about whether or not the standards for passing the women are fair, or adjusted to allow women to pass easier.And that, of course, is because women’s standards are lower.

The military has already deemed women combat capable as soon as they pass basic training. Once you graduate, you are a soldier. Period. All soldiers are expected to fight, and if necessary die for their country.Actually, female soldiers are not expected to fight and die for their country. Though that’s what the Army is trying to do behind Congress’s back.

However, as it stands right now for enlisted women who joined the army voluntarily and passed basic training, they should be given whatever job that they're best at and where the need is the greatest.So you do support forcing women into combat, for the record.

…

Kingscrab:

I think though, that no matter who you are, (man or woman) it's naive to think that you can join any branch of the military and expect to be exempt from certain duties based on gender.Naïve? Are you for real? Welcome to the 20th century, my friend. The military has never not exempt women from certain duties because of gender.

…

GrimTerror:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so not matter how many facts you come up with, no matter how many anecdotes, your opinion is only equally as valid as anyone else who wishes to express their opinion. Just discuss the topic rather than argue over it, and don't feel offended or thretened if someone goes against what you say. Be civilized people!NeoX, Proprietor of Opinion Esquire, decided that he was “tired” of hearing my annoying opinions and whined that I wasn’t using facts. So I proceeded to shut him down with facts. And when facts are in play, talking about opinions is intellectually dishonest.

I don't need to apply for a damn modship to say what i want to. You damn as hell annoying Genocide. And just what the hell made you think i was directing it solely at you? Your self-centred attitude really tries my patience. Obviously if someone has a different opinion from you, you simply MUST take offence to it. What kind of uncivilized and retarded Bullshit is that?Your contribution to the thread is staggering.

[Xenon]

What kind of uncivilized and retarded Bullshit is that?
From your capitalization of "Bullshit" we can clearly see that you're a male chauvanist. Take your backwards opinions and stick them where the sun don't shine.

So you do support forcing women into combat, for the record.
Yes. For the record I support forcing any soldier who signed up voluntarily into any situation, combat or not, that their superior officers deem necessary to achieve their objectives.

[GenocideAlive]

Seriously, though. Anybody else support that Tour of Booty thing I was talking about? I mean, Shazam! I think it'd be worth a few hundred thousand lives to get something like that rolling. I really need to cobble up some quick support on this front, or I'm never going to get enough for a petition. And that petition, even if doomed to fail, would be like the Holy Grail, present for Man but denied in his ignorance. *sniff* It's so pure.

[Xenon]

I say bring on the Apocalypse... I'm down for a Tour of Booty. I mean, just to do my patriotic best you know.

[kongurous]

[color=black][font=Verdana]I would be enthralled to read an actual example of a female soldier who wants to go into combat.

I would be enthralled to read an actual example of any sane soldier who wants go into combat. I can understand a desire to fight, but when the bullets start flying... you can bet your ass you'd wish you were back home.

Seriously, though. Anybody else support that Tour of Booty thing I was talking about? I mean, Shazam! I think it'd be worth a few hundred thousand lives to get something like that rolling. I really need to cobble up some quick support on this front, or I'm never going to get enough for a petition. And that petition, even if doomed to fail, would be like the Holy Grail, present for Man but denied in his ignorance. *sniff* It's so pure.

If the population got to the point it needed a fast rebirth, then I'm all for a Tour of Booty. I hope to god my girlfriend does not read this, on a somewhat related note.

[GenocideAlive]

I would be enthralled to read an actual example of any sane soldier who wants go into combat.
Anybody recall that little blurb from Catch .22?

[Sikawtic]

Well, pulling a trigger doens't require much strength. And females can be just as fast... so I see no problem.

They better get supplied with midol or something though. :P

[kongurous]

Anybody recall that little blurb from Catch .22?

What the fuck is Catch .22?

Yes, I googled it. I came up with a band, a DVD, a book, and something saying it's a military term. That's all I cared to read.

[Toucan]

Catch 22 was a book that came out some years ago.

It was based on a legal clause, called clause 22.

It hasn’t existed since World War 2, If you where deemed insane you actually had to ask to be removed from the battlefront. However clause 22 said if you where sane enough to ask, then you where sane enough to fight.

Catch 22

[GenocideAlive]

Catch .22 was a book that came out some years ago.

It was based on a legal clause concerning mental aptitude for military service on the front lines, called Clause 22. The basis was that:

--
If you WERE sane, you wouldn't want to fight and would ask to leave the front lines.
QED you would be mentally fit for combat.

If you WEREN'T sane, then you would be OK with fighting on the front lines.
QED you wouldn't be mentally fit for combat.

Thus the only way that you could prove you were insane was to fight on the front lines. But by then you would have already served your Tour of Duty.
--

This coined the phrase, "Catch .22".
I had to fix this, because it was damned near fucking impossible to read.

[Neo]

Its sad when a thread that starts off fine and devolves into crap.

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/combat.html

I found this most illuminating.

Through a regimen of regular jogging, weight training, and other rigorous exercise, more that 75 percent of the 41 women studied were able to prepare themselves to successfully perform duties traditionally performed by males in the military. Before training, less than 25 percent of the women were capable of performing the tasks. All but one of the females were civilian volunteers, and none had previously adopted a routine of strenuous physical activity. The women included lawyers, mothers, students, and bartenders. Several had recently had children and thought the training would put them back in shape.

The pure and simple point is that all jobs should be open to women and men - if and only if - the women and men are qualified, capable, competent, and able to perform them! Nothing more, nothing less.

None of the military women taken prisoner in the Pacific in WWII were sexually assaulted.

Besides its not like they aren't serving in combat areas anyways.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/22/eveningnews/main650979.shtml

Oh, and the next flame that happens gets this thread closed.

-Neo

[FallenLord]

Welcome to the home of the skeptical, irascible, doubting, iconoclastic Captain Critical, aka Captain Barb, whose pontificating will try to amuse, bemuse, irritate and generally annoy anyone bold enough to stay long enough to read the ramblings of a self appointed distaff critic who will continue to remind you that women are veterans too!It's pretty clear that Captain Barbra Wilson is biased out the wazoo. I reviewed several of her articles; she's about as objective as a bible thumper.

Even so, I did several searches to find the study she references, without luck. I checked the USARIEM's site to see if it was one of their publications; again, no luck. Want to help me out, NeoX?

Anyway, to answer the good captain: Six months training just to get an underwhelming 75% of the women up to men's average? It would be vastly more efficient to provide additional training for men. That way, instead of simply maintaining the status quo (odd for a feminist to support that, Captain Wilson), we could spring for improvements.

Besides its not like they aren't serving in combat areas anyways.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain650979.shtmlAs the article states, it's currently against illegal for women to serve in combat.

Its sad when a thread that starts off fine and devolves into crap.I am kind of tired of reading about your opinions and beliefs on the matter

So that also means that all men are dumber then women?Pot, kettle, black.

[GenocideAlive]

Its sad when a thread that starts off fine and devolves into crap.
Yeah, I'm sure you had nothing to do with putting it there, NeoFromOnHigh. Go ahead and lock it if you're just going to make snotty rejoinders to topics you were vital to putting in the crapper.
Through a regimen of regular jogging, weight training, and other rigorous exercise, more that 75 percent of the 41 women studied were able to prepare themselves to successfully perform duties traditionally performed by males in the military
So a study performed for 24 weeks using ? as a measure of successful completion of tasks by 41 women is proof positive women are equal to men? Give me a fucking break. How are they equal? They show no comparisons between them...gee I wonder why.

Women serving in combat? Oh yeah. 24 of 800 in Iraq killed while performing non-violent tasks. Driving a truck in a warzone isn't combat, numbnuts.

[Neo]

As the article states, it's currently against illegal for women to serve in combat.

Pot, kettle, black.

Of course shes biased -.- Thats why I didnt link to her other stuff (she seems very uhm passionate about the subject). But when there are people like you who spout the same old stuff, I can imagine I would be pretty tired of it as well.

And, What the hell fallen? THere is no 'average' with basic trianing and stuff- - you either pass or you fail. If 75% of the women succeeded, after (what 6 months?) and these were everyday normal women, lawyers, moms, whatever she said, who could pass the test...

These werent even women who had volunteered for military service.

You keep saying Average this and Average That as if it validates your arguement -- uhm?

Afaik in the army there is no 'average' when joining -- either you pass, or you fail. There is no middle ground -- no average.

Or am I mistaken and some men carry 120lbs of stuff and others cary 40lbs of stuff, and 75 is the average number these women were tested with?

If the women pass basic training then there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed ot participate in any aspect of the military that men can.

The simple fact is that its sexist, nothing else.

-Neo

EDIT:

So a study performed for 24 weeks using ? as a measure of successful completion of tasks by 41 women is proof positive women are equal to men? Give me a fucking break. How are they equal? They show no comparisons between them...gee I wonder why.

more that 75 percent of the 41 women studied were able to prepare themselves to successfully perform duties traditionally performed by males in the military

Seems like women do just fine then. Not all women, but then again, not all men can do it either.

[Xenon]

I had to carry about 80lbs of kit (that's everything...800 rounds of ammo, other essentials, sleeping bag, etc.) plus 22lbs of M249 SAW GPMG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249) with 200 rounds of ammo locked and loaded (that's for the Americans --it's designated the C9 in Canada) There are 2 C9's per section, and eight C7's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diemaco_C7) (that's M16's for the Americans). They give the C9's to the two biggest guys generally, of which, I was one... I got special training, and I carried a special load arrangement so I can easier provide suppressive cover fire for my squad.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/93RAM_Minimi_01053339598268513.jpg

[GenocideAlive]

she seems very uhm passionate about the subject
Seriously, I couldn't help but to laugh.

And yeah, as Xenon pointed out, diff guys carry diff stuff, generally. Sort of like "specialists". It's more divergent the closer to Special Ops you get. I don't know the dirty details other than what I read in books, etc. which seems like it might be romanticized.

Anyway, just FYI basic training generally lasts up to, what, 12 weeks for Marines? So 24 weeks is beyond excessive. Tour of Booty, plz.

[Neo]

Seriously, I couldn't help but to laugh.

And yeah, as Xenon pointed out, diff guys carry diff stuff, generally. Sort of like "specialists". It's more divergent the closer to Special Ops you get. I don't know the dirty details other than what I read in books, etc. which seems like it might be romanticized.

Anyway, just FYI basic training generally lasts up to, what, 12 weeks for Marines? So 24 weeks is beyond excessive. Tour of Booty, plz.

Lol im going to forever remember that now in regards to you, GA the tour of booty dude =P

And yeah, I tried to read through some of her other stuff but theres only so much you can say before you start repeating yourself (mainly men suck we dont need them!)

I wish there was a way to get a real opinion on this, like form an actual female whos been on the front lines, or preferably more then one :/

I just hope those that are in Iraq (along with the men) come home safe.

-Neo

[GrimTerror]

"GT Posts = 2. GT Contribution to Discussion, IR, and General On-Topicyness: 0"

"Your contribution to the thread is staggering."

Genocide and Fallen

I seriously suggest that you look through ALL the pages of this thread before making dumbass statements like that.

I've already stated what i think anyway, so you can go and take your idiocy and cram it for all i care.

[FallenLord]

Xenon:

Everyone likes suppressive fire. :)

Did you just use the C7 or did you also have to carry a C7?

...

GrimTerror:

I seriously suggest that you look through ALL the pages of this thread before making dumbass statements like that.

I've already stated what i think anyway, so you can go and take your idiocy and cram it for all i care.Claiming that facts are irrelevant negated 10 fold any marginal contributions you may have made.

[Xenon]

I carried a C7 in Basic, but after that, all I carried was my C9 and my Gerber Tactical Knife, which I still have along with my push knife.

I remember that on like the 3rd or 4th day in Basic, I was really tired, and we were getting this lecture by a sergeant (I think his name was Paris) --anyway, I figured that instead of holding my rifle, I would balance it on its butt and let it "free-stand". Bad idea. The thing fell with a huge clatter, right when there was a lull in his speech. --I got 50 pushups for that, and had to sleep with it (the C7) for the rest of boot. I wasn't allowed to let it leave my side at any time (other than showers, mess, and lectures). LOL.

There was this guy, I forget his name... he washed out in 5th week, but until then he would make these amazing dripping noises with his mouth. He used to do it at night after lights-out, and people would keep running to the bathroom to tighten the taps. Only, the taps were already tightened! haha!

By the way... my Gerber is sharp enough to shave with, which I once did on-video to prove to some friends on the internet. Alas, they're a different group of friends and I don't want to share that information (URL) with anyone other than those I already have at WB.

[GenocideAlive]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Posts = 3. Contribution: Still 0. Good try, fruitcup.
By the way... my Gerber is sharp enough to shave with, which I once did on-video to prove to some friends on the internet. Alas, they're a different group of friends and I don't want to share that information (URL) with anyone other than those I already have at WB.
Where the hell did this come from? And why are you so obsessed with bragging and then oppressive secrecy, like all we have to do is sit around and wonder what Xenon looks like, or with whom Xenon is talking besides us, or why Xenon...geez. Who cares? You're not that interesting.

[Xenon]

Where the hell did this come from? And why are you so obsessed with bragging and then oppressive secrecy, like all we have to do is sit around and wonder what Xenon looks like, or with whom Xenon is talking besides us, or why Xenon...geez. Who cares? You're not that interesting.

Is that what you're thinking? Wow. Didn't know I made you think at all. It's not like you can tell from your comments that this ever happens to you.

Where did it come from? It's an associative memory. That's how things work.

I wouldn't mind showing you guys the video, it's just that I have "other" videos in the same place, and I like to keep certain aspects and parts of my online persona seperate from others. See, that site/place is where my real friends and family go, and frankly, I don't want to mix them up with a bunch of uncouth savage little kids --which is what a great majority of the people at warboards are. There are a few people here that I include in my circle of "RL" friends, and those people know all about that other site.

But I digress. This is waaaay off topic. Associative memory is like that though, that's why we all start "picking daisies" in real-life conversations.

[Tissue]

I am extremely suprised that noone has mentioned women in Isreal or Kurdish fighters in former Iraq. People in Isreal has to do 2 years military service irrespective of sex. This means male and females and weaklings too. Of course the country itself is in an extreme state of alert and has practically been at war constantly since its interception.

The Kurds are a group of people persecuted in Iraq for a very long time, being the minority ethnic. They have a reputation that everyone, male, female and children will grab a gun and fight when attacked. Why? Because not letting women fight is not an option. Any nation, country or group of people at war for any amount of time against any other nation eventually gets to the point where women or even children fight.

So should women fight? Yes certainly, they are doing so now, did so in the recent past when not fighting is not an option. Otherwise your nation will be genocided or assimilated.

The above probably does not apply to USA as they have not been at a state of war where they were in any major danger since colonisation.

[GenocideAlive]

I am extremely suprised that noone has mentioned women in Isreal or Kurdish fighters in former Iraq. People in Isreal has to do 2 years military service irrespective of sex. This means male and females and weaklings too. Of course the country itself is in an extreme state of alert and has practically been at war constantly since its interception.
The reason that nobody has brought up fighters in the Middle East is because of their incredible differences from the US. For instance, half of the fuckers in the Middle East conflicts are certifiably insane, and will strap bombs to themselves to blow up busses of civilians. There's really little basis of comparison.

[EvilEggCracker]

half of the fuckers in the Middle East conflicts are certifiably insane

No, just deeply religious.

[GenocideAlive]

"Deeply religious" is spending a lot of time in religious rituals/customs. "Insane" is mass-murder for the sole purpose of appeasing divine beings.

[FallenLord]

I carried a C7 in Basic, but after that, all I carried was my C9 and my Gerber Tactical Knife, which I still have along with my push knife./nod. Is hitting stuff with that just bonus, or is it functionally pretty much the same as a C7 on automatic?

I remember that on like the 3rd or 4th day in Basic, I was really tired, and we were getting this lecture by a sergeant (I think his name was Paris) --anyway, I figured that instead of holding my rifle, I would balance it on its butt and let it "free-stand". Bad idea. The thing fell with a huge clatter, right when there was a lull in his speech. --I got 50 pushups for that, and had to sleep with it (the C7) for the rest of boot. I wasn't allowed to let it leave my side at any time (other than showers, mess, and lectures). LOL.Very humorous! Funny how bad timing and perfect timing depend on perspective. :)

Where the hell did this come from? And why are you so obsessed with bragging and then oppressive secrecy, like all we have to do is sit around and wonder what Xenon looks like, or with whom Xenon is talking besides us, or why Xenon...geez. Who cares? You're not that interesting....chill?

So should women fight? Yes certainly, they are doing so now, did so in the recent past when not fighting is not an option. Otherwise your nation will be genocided or assimilated.

The above probably does not apply to USA as they have not been at a state of war where they were in any major danger since colonisation.I think the thread is necessarily referring to the women of developed countries.

[Xenon]

No. The C9 is accurate to 600m. It only has one setting, full auto and you can expend 1000 rounds a minute... so short bursts. Just squeeze and release. Don't panic. etc.

[Neo]

Is that what you're thinking? Wow. Didn't know I made you think at all. It's not like you can tell from your comments that this ever happens to you.

Where did it come from? It's an associative memory. That's how things work.

I wouldn't mind showing you guys the video, it's just that I have "other" videos in the same place, and I like to keep certain aspects and parts of my online persona seperate from others. See, that site/place is where my real friends and family go, and frankly, I don't want to mix them up with a bunch of uncouth savage little kids --which is what a great majority of the people at warboards are. There are a few people here that I include in my circle of "RL" friends, and those people know all about that other site.

But I digress. This is waaaay off topic. Associative memory is like that though, that's why we all start "picking daisies" in real-life conversations.
Haha, Xenon your not quite as secretive as you'd like to be =P

Heh, I think theres a thread somewhere in the staff forum with a link to your vids.

You could always just upload that particular video to a different area if you'd like to show it to us savages.

And GA I would've pegged you as a little more intelligent then that -- the majority of the people in the middle east aren't like the miniority insane jihad-obsessed religious fanatics :/

I think this thread is dieing out, or at least everythings been pretty much discussed. Lets get a new topic going!

EDIT: Fallen your a really interesting person, 'developed countries' what an odd thing to say. So the women in these other locations aren't really women? If they serve, why can't american women?

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

And GA I would've pegged you as a little more intelligent then that -- the majority of the people in the middle east aren't like the miniority insane jihad-obsessed religious fanatics :/
Whoa whoa whoa, the context of the discussion was SOLDIERS in the Middle East, not Muhammed Smith hanging out minding his business. The vast majority of Middle Easterners are very religious, but what passes for SOLIDERS are by and large fucking psychopaths. Nearly every combat unit they have has some sort of deep religious connection to Allah and jihad, whether government endorsed or not. Which flag was it that had "God is good" or "bismiallah" written on it in Arabic?

I spent about a year in a mosque when I was in college...up until that point, I was under the illusion that Christians were hardcore.
No. The C9 is accurate to 600m.
I know the AK is notorious for being pretty accurate for cost, penetration, velocity, etc. Where does the C9 fit in, there?

[Neo]

Whoa whoa whoa, the context of the discussion was SOLDIERS in the Middle East, not Muhammed Smith hanging out minding his business. The vast majority of Middle Easterners are very religious, but what passes for SOLIDERS are by and large fucking psychopaths. Nearly every combat unit they have has some sort of deep religious connection to Allah and jihad, whether government endorsed or not. Which flag was it that had "God is good" or "bismiallah" written on it in Arabic?

I spent about a year in a mosque when I was in college...up until that point, I was under the illusion that Christians were hardcore.

I know the AK is notorious for being pretty accurate for cost, penetration, velocity, etc. Where does the C9 fit in, there?

I understand that GA, but I think he was refering more to the normal people who are required to serve 2 years in the military -- I had a friend who had to go through it... Haven't heard from her for a long while now, it was kind of sad though, since she was a really good person, I can just imagine serving has changed her a lot... If shes not dead.

As for the 'soldiers'... Fanatics I think is the perfect word, add a dash of religious before it.

Nucking Futs.

I was thinking we could try to discuss a totally different topic, something not mainstream, anyone have any ideas?

-Neo

[FallenLord]

Fallen your a really interesting person, 'developed countries' what an odd thing to say. So the women in these other locations aren't really women? If they serve, why can't american women?If you don't live in a developed country, you may be faced with life-threatening persecution. Defending yourself in this fashion is not necessarily the same thing as "serving" in a military.

This thread is definitely dead.

[Tissue]

The reason that nobody has brought up fighters in the Middle East is because of their incredible differences from the US. For instance, half of the fuckers in the Middle East conflicts are certifiably insane, and will strap bombs to themselves to blow up busses of civilians. There's really little basis of comparison.

That is very deeply offensive and is definately shows the level of intellect of genocidealive. Calling people in the middle east and fuckers probably shows what really causes wars. Simply people who beleive that other people are not real people but monsters. At least that what the kurds call iraqis but they have been mass genocided by them...

Also I chose the example Isreal because it is a developed country with all the infrastructure and government administration you would expect of one, are you calling them fuckers which are mostly certifiably insane?

I am suprised your post hasn't been deleted to preserve intellect.

This post is definately dead though...

[GenocideAlive]

That is very deeply offensive and is definately shows the level of intellect of genocidealive. Calling people in the middle east and fuckers probably shows what really causes wars.
Are you trying to spell "definite", you dumb shit? What does "calling people in the middle east and fuckers" mean?
Simply people who beleive that other people are not real people but monsters. At least that what the kurds call iraqis but they have been mass genocided by them...
"Mass genocide" is redundant, intellect boy. And if you read my post, I never once called anybody a monster. I said their religious soldiers are nucking futs. If you don't think so, I don't give a monkey damn. But if you strap bombs to yourself, sit in a civilian bus, and detonate it to "further" a "war" that nobody around you even recognizes, you're a sick fuck. Last I heard, that was just called "slaughter".
Also I chose the example Isreal because it is a developed country with all the infrastructure and government administration you would expect of one, are you calling them fuckers which are mostly certifiably insane?
If Israel wasn't backed by the US in the Middle East, I'm sure they'd be doing the same crap. In the meantime, they've never had a significant threat to their existance since 1950. Why do they need to suicide bomb people? They've got tanks, their opponents use rocks.
I am suprised your post hasn't been deleted to preserve intellect.
I'm surprised you survived your beating with the Stupid bat. Or at least I'm guessing you were beat with a Stupid bat.

[Tissue]

" For instance, half of the fuckers in the Middle East conflicts are certifiably insane, and will strap bombs to themselves to blow up busses of civilians. There's really little basis of comparison. "

Listen to this qoute from you, you swear and degrade people from the middle east.
The post should had read " calling people in the middle east fuckers"
People who strap bombs to themselves are not soldiers but are civilians

"If Israel wasn't backed by the US in the Middle East, I'm sure they'd be doing the same crap. In the meantime, they've never had a significant threat to their existance since 1950. Why do they need to suicide bomb people? They've got tanks, their opponents use rocks."

1) what does "why do theuy need to suicide bomb people" mean?

2) Isreal does face serious threats to its existance...suicide bombings...retreat from gaza strip and have you ever heard of the 6 day war?

You accuse me of trolling in another furom as if you have some sort of "challenge" against me.

I accept my spelling and grammar sometimes is not perfect but not every's first language is english nor is everyong born in the US or England. This is an interent furom and spelling "definitely" wrongly as "definately" is understandable.

You regularily swear and insult large popalaces of other people in other countries. Please note that you are the only person to do that. Go and curb yourself.

I am suprised that you survived from being dropped on a stupid stick.

[GenocideAlive]

Listen to this qoute from you, you swear and degrade people from the middle east. The post should had read " calling people in the middle east fuckers" People who strap bombs to themselves are not soldiers but are civilians
As I clarified to Neo, I was speaking of soldiers. Militants, Terrorists, etc. REGULARLY suicide bomb civilians. If you don't like it, tough shit.
2) Isreal does face serious threats to its existance...suicide bombings...retreat from gaza strip and have you ever heard of the 6 day war?
The retreat from the Gaza Strip was a serious threat to the Israeli way of life? I thought it was a peace-offering by Sharon to appease the Palestinians that they've been wholesale slaughtering. Some dumbass Palestinian straps a bomb to himself, and keys off in some crowded marketplace and Israel responds by rocketbombing a few neighborhoods. I would even go so far as to say that Israel's move out of the Gaza Strip was a politically motivated one, to curry favor when they go to a full-out war against the Palestinians. Not to mention that to militarily defend the Gaza is a nightmare.

And considering the number of decades suicide bombings have occured over there, I'd like to know when they're going to suicide bomb their way to victory. It seems like it's not working.
You regularily swear and insult large popalaces of other people in other countries. Please note that you are the only person to do that. Go and curb yourself.
So what? Large populaces of other people in other countries swear at the US and its citizens; I hate to break it to you, but there are many people that do it. So if you want to be an impotent peacekeeper, join the UN and spare me your hyper-offended rhetoric. I'm not here to be politically correct or walk on eggshells because some simp thinks to himself "Oh, God, it can't be true! Not perfect, poor Israel!"

I can't stand getting into debates involving Israel. The first fucking thing out of someone's mouth is "Oh, you hate Jews?" If I say Africa has some screwed up interior management and disease control, nobody says "Oh, you hate blacks?" But suggest that Israel isn't perfect and get ready to be namecalled.

[Tissue]

Hate to break this to you but I do not believe Isreal should had been created as it was blantantly land taken away from palenstinians, but that was not what my original posts was all about. I used Isreal as an example of women in combat situations and you started flaming me and saying that people in the middle east are sick fucks and their military are insane.

"As I clarified to Neo, I was speaking of soldiers. Militants, Terrorists, etc. REGULARLY suicide bomb civilians. If you don't like it, tough shit."

Interesting, you say you are speaking of soldiers then say it was militants and terrorists ect who suicide bomb civilians.

Seriously, nobody else in this furom swears but you and I certainly dont want these furoms to be degraded to such a point.

[GenocideAlive]

Interesting, you say you are speaking of soldiers then say it was militants and terrorists ect who suicide bomb civilians.
If you want to posit a difference, then you're going to have to do so with something more convincing than an inane "interesting".
Seriously, nobody else in this furom swears but you and I certainly dont ant these furoms to be degraded to such a point.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Tough titty.