On November 12 2009 13:25 Culture wrote: You're forgetting a really important thing:
If women were in the military, we'd not have as many wars / rape / violence / etc.
We're talking about the infantry... I fail to see how women in the infantry would prevent wars or violence. Rape, maybe?
Sigh, I think this is the last time I'm visiting this thread. There is just too much ignorance here. Women rape women too. Rape isn't about sex the vast majority of the time. It's about power and control and victimization. Women are just as susceptible to this as men. Women can and have sexually abused other women. I personally know of a girl who went to jail and was severely injured by another woman with a mop handle. It wasn't pretty.
On November 12 2009 13:39 KwarK wrote: By the way, if women aren't capable it really is a non issue. For example the British Royal Marines have an equal opportunity recruitment policy. Women are allowed to join. That said, no woman has ever passed their entrance tests (though a few have come close). If you look back to my graphs, the shaded area for the Royal Marines is the far side of the men line which excluses 90% of men and even the most freakishly fit of women.
You can allow women in without compromising the unit as long as you don't lower standards for entry. If they meet the standards they're good enough, if they don't, they're not. Ruling them out is hypocritical, if you really believe they can't handle it then let them prove it to you.
Dude I agree with this. 100%. This is what you all don't understand. Its not about standards, and how well they can do in boot camp. Its a much more broad issue.
The result is not what's important to me. I don't care if there are women serving in the infantry or not. But it's unfair that they don't get to try (in the US). We don't have equal opportunity and that's wrong.
Many people are making the underlying assumptions that it's possible to come up with: 1. a clear definition of what fitness to fight means 2. a method which easily distinguishes whether or not a person fits this criteria
It's too bad things are never that simple.
One reason why people purport disallowing women from joining the front lines is to adopt a prophylactic rule that covers more than is necessary. This allows you to fully cover those who are not "fit to fight" but at the same time its downside is to cut into the minority women who would be "fit to fight".
The adoption of whether you would want a broad rule (don't let women in) vs. a narrow rule (pass a test and you're in) attacks the exact same problem (no incompetents) but in different ways. The former keeps the incompetents out at the expense of those minority who are fit whereas the latter allows this minority in but with the additional risk to also include the incompetents.
Of course choosing which course to take should just be a starting point in the analysis.
Edit: haha...this seems kinda out of place so it's just a thought that I had while reading.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
Are you seriously arguing that there are no women out there who are cold blooded enough? How the hell would you even go about and test this? And if it's possible to test this, what makes you think no woman will pass?
I have personal experience with the kind of females that join the marines. About one in fifteen is that kind of hardcore nut that can keep up with all the guys. The other fourteen are fucking drama queens that you don't want anywhere near the front lines. It's best the way it is, TRUST ME.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
??? You need to have a gun, be able to point it at someone, and shoot. You seriously don't think that anyone can do that?
And I bet there are at least some women who would have the drive to go to the front lines.
You have no idea what the infantry does. Stop posting here, you are embarrassing yourself.
Riddle me this: If women can serve as United States astronauts, why the hell would they be physically incapable of being a G.I.? You telling me the physical and psychological demands of a ground pounder are that much more strenuous than going into the void of space?
And looking at the later posts, it's kind of funny because I listed out the cliched arguments that people would use earlier in the thread. And a whole ton of new people show up and say exactly what I listed. Women are a distraction. Women are emotionally unstable. Women are physically incapable. Etc etc ad nauseum.
Then there's the random US G.I. who thinks he's some kind of elite super soldier that eats bullets for breakfast and hoists tanks across the Sahara in the afternoon. Yeah, military people are a cut above the average fat, lazy, very out-of-shape citizen, but one Y-chromosome doesn't turn them into a genetic freak that can outmatch every woman on Earth. I routinely see ex-G.I.s at the gym and they get blown out by the men AND women that make working out a way of life. There is nothing that elite about them. Maybe if you were talking about Navy SEALs, it'd be a different story. But just the army? Give me a break.
On November 12 2009 13:55 lvatural wrote: Many people are making the underlying assumptions that it's possible to come up with: 1. a clear definition of what fitness to fight means 2. a method which easily distinguishes whether or not a person fits this criteria
It's too bad things are never that simple.
One reason why people purport disallowing women from joining the front lines is to adopt a prophylactic rule that covers more than is necessary. This allows you to fully cover those who are not "fit to fight" but at the same time its downside is to cut into the minority women who would be "fit to fight".
The adoption of whether you would want a broad rule (don't let women in) vs. a narrow rule (pass a test and you're in) attacks the exact same problem (no incompetents) but in different ways. The former keeps the incompetents out at the expense of those minority who are fit whereas the latter allows this minority in but with the additional risk to also include the incompetents.
Of course choosing which course to take should just be a starting point in the analysis.
Edit: haha...this seems kinda out of place so it's just a thought that I had while reading.
Oh, that doesn't apply to just women. The need to weed out incompetence has been enough of a problem throughout history, even with all male armies.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
??? You need to have a gun, be able to point it at someone, and shoot. You seriously don't think that anyone can do that?
And I bet there are at least some women who would have the drive to go to the front lines.
You have no idea what the infantry does. Stop posting here, you are embarrassing yourself.
Riddle me this: If women can serve as United States astronauts, why the hell would they be physically incapable of being a G.I.? You telling me the physical and psychological demands of a ground pounder are that much more strenuous than going into the void of space?
Women are a distraction. Women are emotionally unstable. Women are physically incapable
But just the army? Give me a break.
Lol this guy is either the biggest troll or just the dumbest kid alive. Homeschooled or junior college definitely in your past/future.
there's no logical or moral justification for women to not be in the shit. it's patriarchal to say that women should stay home and be protected. women oughta fight for their country, be killed, captured and tortured/raped just as much as men, if that's their choice to enlist.
the big obstacles are the logistics, and traditional thinking of course
On November 12 2009 14:03 Draconizard wrote: It's OK. Soon, all wars will be fought by robots, and soldiers' tasks will be in the production, maintenance, and control of said robots.
And when that day comes, I'm pretty sure someone will make this thread: "[P]Should foreigners be allowed in the military?".
lyudmila mikhailivna pavlichenko was a soviet sniper during WWII and had three hundred and nine confirmed kills
i am reasonably sure she was both cold-blooded enough and physically competent enough to fight on a battlefield
if there are criteria for front-line infantry that the vast majority of women cannot meet then the vast majority of them should not be front-line infantry; if there are ones who can then they should be allowed to
but the whole social cohesion thing is not as good of an argument in my opinion; otherwise why bother desegregating the army it can only increase tensions
Personally, if i want someone in my unit/platoon it doesn't matter if the person is a man or woman. The question is can the person do the job?
This would be my personal criteria for woman.
Can she provide accurate fire to take down targets or provide covering fire. Does she have the physical strength to carry me to safety if i was wounded/shot down. Will she accept all combat orders given to her by her superior? Will she compromise the cohesiveness or moral of the unit because of her gender? Does she know basic combat first aid? Does she understand the tactics and strategies in the unit? Does she know the in's and out of the weapon that she carries?
These are pretty simple things in my opinion that any soldier needs to do and if a women can do that she is able to join the army. You don't have to be extremely fit, you just have to be strong enough to hold your on in a melee and to be able to carry other personnel to safety or to the medical stations.
Women should not be in the army due to quota though. That's a big no in my books.
Hmm, ive been in the US Army for 5 years now and i can tell u now that women in the infantry will be a horrible idea. There is so much shit that happens, even in regular support units, its ridicolous. The majority of the females serving in the military are overweight and cant even pass their PT test which has been dumbed down ALOT in the last couple of years. They are a big distraction off and on the battlefield. And many of you have no idea how RIGHT the OP is when he quoted until you have actually been there and seen it.
When I was in boot camp more than twenty years ago, my platoon sergeant told of his experiences training women Marines. The idea, at that time, was to subject the best and most motivated women to the same training as men. "They were great women," he said, "but after a few days they were all in tears."
Women cannot endure the same training that men endure.
The United States Army was created for one purpose -- the defense of our country. It was not created as a laboratory for social experimentation. It is not an arena for correcting nature's inequities We already know from common observation that women lack upper body strength. Furthermore, the very advantages that women possess over men -- emotional intelligence and sensitivity -- work against them on the battlefield. At the same time, the very emotional cluelessness and blockheaded insensitivity of men serves them well in the most brutal of all human activities.
Last week I interviewed a retired U.S. Army sergeant. He told me that female recruits often lack the strength to pull the pin on a grenade. No women that he has trained can throw a grenade beyond its blast radius. He said that women give out during forced marches at a much higher rate than men Women cannot carry the heavy gear that men carry. Worse yet, it is unacceptable for military personnel to complain about the danger that women pose to the combat readiness of their units. According to the sergeant, the imperatives of basic military toughness and discipline have been sacrificed in the U.S. Army so that women can get through the training. This cannot fail to have a negative effect on the male troops. Sexual harassment is another difficulty that arises. Disruptions of all kinds mount on every side. In addition, women cost more than men do. Health costs for women are greater and injuries are more frequent. In truth, the military budget is taking a colossal hit.
Also to go against someone elses argument by having women "atleast" try. The military cant afford that type of money. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to train 1 soldier. 1 SOLDIER. You think the government is going to waste that money on just giving someone a chance? Sorry buddy, it doesnt work that way; Accept reality
On November 12 2009 17:36 Tenryu wrote: Also to go against someone elses argument by having women "atleast" try. The military cant afford that type of money. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to train 1 soldier. 1 SOLDIER. You think the government is going to waste that money on just giving someone a chance? Sorry buddy, it doesnt work that way; Accept reality
It doesn't cost that much to train one soldier and if they were incapable they would be weeded out early in the training. Plus that ignores the fact that you let men try and fail. The military can't afford to waste that money giving men a chance.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
??? You need to have a gun, be able to point it at someone, and shoot. You seriously don't think that anyone can do that?
And I bet there are at least some women who would have the drive to go to the front lines.
You have no idea what the infantry does. Stop posting here, you are embarrassing yourself.
Riddle me this: If women can serve as United States astronauts, why the hell would they be physically incapable of being a G.I.?
People in the comfortable society are sometimes not so much in touch with reality. The hear "women" and they immediately say "yes of course they can do whatever a man can!" even though this is not by any means true. And obviously, I am just talking physically right now, the only fact of the matter is that women cannot handle physical tasks as well as men, which is why we separate women and men in the olympic events.
War is not a natural act. Neither men or women really belong at the front lines. But if it had to be done, having men do it would be the, to me, obvious choice.
That being said, I fucking love Starship Troopers.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.bodybuildingweekly.com/thumbnail.php?file=KristyHawkins1a_801545083.jpg&size=article_medium)
