SHE can serve in my military any day of the week.

[ChrisL]

but the world wasnt PC back than.

I dont think any woman today could hide their gender in the military today.

once again its not an issue of serving in the military but developing unit cohesion

Well, if you think it's such an issue, then we could have segregated units. All women's units and all men's units. I just don't think it's right to deny a woman the chance to serve her country if she wants to do so.

 

[Bodi]

I didnt say or imply you said "all women". Reading comprehension fail.

I can play too... Reading comprehension fail. I didn't say that you said "all women". What's next?

You are kinda implying it by talking about "women", though I don't think that is what you meant.

Why are you so mad?

Not mad... was drinking. Just using some colorful language. It happens. Didn't mean to scare you.

Is it because your social agenda is being mugged by reality?

Social agenda? Yeah... that kind of ridiculous assumption and political attack cowardice generally leaves the commentator... you, looking really foolish. What is a social agenda to you? Letting women vote? Was that one? How about wanting women to be able to drive a car in Saudi Arabia as was illegal until last year... another "social agenda"? SSM... is that a social agenda? Yeah... no. It is about equal rights. It is called a constitutional or anti-discrimination argument. Maybe it is just me but when people's rights are violated, denied or dismissed then that bothers me. Here I go with another "social agenda"... praising your right to free speech as a male. The Amazonian women used to call that a social agenda too... I am sure that we are all glad they lost that one in Court.

Nothing I said was sexist-but you are quick with the names because you have lost on the basis or reason or rationality.

Reading comprehension fail. I didn't say that you said anything sexist.

It is called, "asking a question".

Its a common lefty cliche and you are giving us a textbook demonstration. Perhaps its time to pop on the horn rimmed glasses and cruise down to starbucks in your hybrid for some hot chocolate?

Starbucks is for douche bags. I am not a Liberal. I drive a Lexus. Does the hot chocolate have some scotch in it?

It's a common intellectually dishonest cliche... making silly statements and backing it up with crap sophomoric rhetoric. You fail to even come close to answering the meat of the post and instead attack the periphery.

"allow women that qualify for military combat into military combat positions"... If none qualify then none are in... if some qualify then those are in.

Now if you can't or won't discuss the actual point of the thread/post then I got you bro... you got nothing.

 

[Bodi]

And we don't recruit those kinds of men for the infantry, and never have. What's your point?

Again, the better question here is just what exactly you think the military gains by allowing the 0.001% of women (and wasting valuable time and money training thousands more who will simply flunk out, if our standards remain honest) who actually might be able to compare favorably to men onto the frontlines even in spite of all the other problems they inevitably tend to cause. Why should we screw around with things that already work just fine simply because "Olga the troll woman" wants to play Rambo for a few years?

I'm sorry, but "equality" really isn't a good enough answer here. War couldn't care less about equality.

Bringing a knife to a gunfight in the interests of puffing up some lofty civilian social ambition is simply idiotic.

We don't recruit what kind of people for the infantry? Those that are better suited to kill?

Denying women the right to try isn't logical. If some make it and fail then we have some evidence. And it isn't like the men are representing too well. This is from England but our stats are pretty much the same...

In 2004, just over one in four, or 26.4 per cent, of recruits left the Army before the end of their recruit training.
But that figure jumped to more than one in three, or 34.6 per cent, last year.

Record numbers of Army recruits drop out - Telegraph

Women are allowed to attempt jobs even if sounds like a bad idea. Not sure why this is being attacked before they even get the chance. I think I was talking to you about fire fighting... well, about the only position that we didn't put a woman was on the attacking hose and/or first entrants into a structure and that was because the ones on our squad failed the physical test. So did a couple of the men. If Olga the East German shot put medalist was on the team she might have made it and that is great because the only thing that I would care about is getting my ass pulled out of a bad situation. Gender means literally nothing when saving a life. From what I can tell women can run and shoot just like a man.

 

[ChrisL]

We don't recruit what kind of people for the infantry? Those that are better suited to kill?

Denying women the right to try isn't logical. If some make it and fail then we have some evidence. And it isn't like the men are representing too well. This is from England but our stats are pretty much the same...

In 2004, just over one in four, or 26.4 per cent, of recruits left the Army before the end of their recruit training.
But that figure jumped to more than one in three, or 34.6 per cent, last year.

Record numbers of Army recruits drop out - Telegraph

Women are allowed to attempt jobs even if sounds like a bad idea. Not sure why this is being attacked before they even get the chance. I think I was talking to you about fire fighting... well, about the only position that we didn't put a woman was on the attacking hose and/or first entrants into a structure and that was because the ones on our squad failed the physical test. So did a couple of the men. If Olga the East German shot put medalist was on the team she might have made it and that is great because the only thing that I would care about is getting my ass pulled out of a bad situation. Gender means literally nothing when saving a life. From what I can tell women can run and shoot just like a man.

They don't care. They will just say that the men cannot control their sexual urges if there are women around and that this causes mayhem within the rank and file. :roll:

 

[joG]

They don't care. They will just say that the men cannot control their sexual urges if there are women around and that this causes mayhem within the rank and file. :roll:

Men are beasts and women can't do pull-ups.

So there!

 

[Bodi]

Why put women in a combat role? No one is saying that all women cannot pass the standards to perform in a combat enviorment but how about all the resources required to serve those one or two females serving with an all male infantry company? In order to be PC we now need seperate facilities for these 2 women. Which will seperate them from the other members of the unit. Won't this hurt the unit from forming a bond? These men form a brotherhood. They eat, sleep, shower, and train together. Now if you have a squad of 6 males and two females is this squad going to be on the same page all time? Are they going to know each other like the other all male squad?

When you mix men and women emotions become involved just like throwing open gays into the ranks.

I understand that there are a lot of men out there incapable of controlling themselves. Gays and women represent threats. Maybe the psychological and emotional standards for the military should be raised. All of the arguments that I read seem to describe men as feeble, emotionally weak people. I think higher of them.

 

[Bodi]

They don't care. They will just say that the men cannot control their sexual urges if there are women around and that this causes mayhem within the rank and file. :roll:

Somebody already used that one... can't remember who though.

 

[ChrisL]

Men are beasts and women can't do pull-ups.

So there!

Some women are beasts too. I've seen plenty of them. :mrgreen:

 

[ChrisL]

Somebody already used that one... can't remember who though.

They could just segregate them if that was the issue.

 

[joG]

Some women are beasts too. I've seen plenty of them. :mrgreen:

Sounds fun, if that's what you like.

 

[ChrisL]

Sounds fun, if that's what you like.

What sounds fun?

 

[Gathomas88]

Women have ALWAYS fought in wars. It's just that a lot of men are unaware of that fact. :mrgreen:

Women Warriors in History : provided by Lothene Experimental Archaeology

The occasional female general or desperate woman defending her homestead isn't exactly the same thing. :2razz:

We don't recruit what kind of people for the infantry? Those that are better suited to kill?

I'm sorry, but again, women simply are not those people.

Denying women the right to try isn't logical. If some make it and fail then we have some evidence. And it isn't like the men are representing too well. This is from England but our stats are pretty much the same...

They're already failing miserably. That's exactly why the Obama Administration is forcing the military to go out of its way to lower standards so that they can join anyway.

It's disgusting.

In 2004, just over one in four, or 26.4 per cent, of recruits left the Army before the end of their recruit training.
But that figure jumped to more than one in three, or 34.6 per cent, last year.

Yup, and women flunk out at two or three times that rate, even during regular, non-combat training. Your point?

Women are allowed to attempt jobs even if sounds like a bad idea.

They shouldn't be. It is pointless, and it's going to get a lot of good people killed.

Again, the military isn't about feel good "self-esteem" building, pal. It's about ruthlessly killing people.

I'm not sure what part of this fact you're failing to grasp.

I think I was talking to you about fire fighting... well, about the only position that we didn't put a woman was on the attacking hose and/or first entrants into a structure and that was because the ones on our squad failed the physical test. So did a couple of the men.

Then things were functioning as they should have. However, I would point out that you would probably have had a team more likely to meet those physical requirements if you had only hired men.

From what I can tell women can run and shoot just like a man.

You've clearly never spent twelve hours on a firing range twiddling your thumbs because some chubby female soldier insists on emptying every magazine given to her directly into the dirt 15 feet in front of her foxhole hours after everyone else has qualified. :roll:

I'm sorry man, but I'm speaking from experience here. The vast majority of female soldiers I've served with simply suck.

They've got no killer instinct to speak of, and they struggle to keep up physically. The rare exceptions to this rule really are not common enough to justify changing the entire way we do things.

 

[ChrisL]

The occasional female general or desperate woman defending her homestead isn't exactly the same thing. :2razz:



I'm sorry, but again, women simply are not those people.



They're already failing miserably. That's exactly why the Obama Administration is forcing the military to going out of its way to lower standards so that they can join anyway.

It's disgusting.



Yup, and women flunk out at two or three times that rate, even during regular, non-combat training. Your point?



They shouldn't be. It is pointless, and it's going to get a lot of good people killed.

Again, the military isn't about feel good "self-esteem" building, pal. It's about ruthlessly killing people.

I'm not sure what part of this fact you're failing to grasp.



Then things were functioning as they should have. However, I would point out that you would probably have a team more likely to meet those physical requirements if you only hired men.



You've clearly never spent twelve hours on a firing range twiddling your thumbs because some chubby female soldier insists on emptying every magazine given to her directly into the dirt 15 feet in front of her foxhole hours after everyone else qualified. :roll:

I'm sorry man, but I'm speaking from experience here. The vast majority of female soldiers I've served with simply suck.

They've got no killer instinct to speak of, and they struggle to keep up physically. The rare exceptions to this rule really are not common enough to justify changing the entire way we do things.

Now you know I've posted links before about women who actually fought in wars throughout history. In the civil war there were a couple of hundred women who disguised themselves and fought alongside the men.

Edit* I actually underestimated the number of women who fought alongside men in the Civil War. Here is the link.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Women-Who-Fought-in-the-Civil-War.html

 

[Gathomas88]

Now you know I've posted links before about women who actually fought in wars throughout history. In the civil war there were a couple of hundred women who disguised themselves and fought alongside the men.

Edit* I actually underestimated the number of women who fought alongside men in the Civil War. Here is the link.

The Women Who Fought in the Civil War | History & Archaeology | Smithsonian Magazine

There were quite a few child soldiers in the Civil War as well.



A couple of them even managed to kill full grown men and won medals for it.

Would you say this is an argument for allowing pre-pubescent children to join the infantry?

 

[ChrisL]

There were quite a few child soldiers in the Civil War as well.

View attachment 67159544

A couple of them even managed to kill full grown men and won medals for it.

Would you say this is an argument for allowing pre-pubescent children to join the infantry?

Women are NOT prepubescent children. Where do you get off making such comparisons?

 

[Bodi]

They could just segregate them if that was the issue.

They did that with Blacks and the Japanese in WWII until they realized that both were capable of much more. Now it isn't a problem except for racists. Same mentality here... just sexism.

 

[Bodi]

Women are NOT prepubescent children. Where do you get off making such comparisons?

The argument just gets stranger and stranger... not to mention fairly offensive.

 

[Bodi]

There were quite a few child soldiers in the Civil War as well.

View attachment 67159544

A couple of them even managed to kill full grown men and won medals for it.

Would you say this is an argument for allowing pre-pubescent children to join the infantry?

And some nerdy little skinny and bald men have killed full grown real men too... what is your point?

I bet that no matter how hard you trained there are women that would kick your ass in a sprint, or fighting for that matter...

 

[Gathomas88]

Women are NOT prepubescent children. Where do you get off making such comparisons?

The average woman is generally about the same size, and possesses the same level of strength, as a twelve or 13 year old boy.

 

[ChrisL]

The average woman is generally about the same size, and possesses the same level of strength, as a twelve or 13 year old boy.

They are not. The average height for a woman is 5 feet 5 inches. Do you look at women? Most women are NOT the size of a 12-year-old boy. :roll:

 

[Gathomas88]

And some nerdy little skinny and bald men have killed full grown real men too... what is your point?

AND THEY'RE NOT IN THE INFANTRY, NOR WOULD THEY EVER BE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR THE JOB! :lol:

Again, this isn't a hard concept.

I bet that no matter how hard you trained there are women that would kick your ass in a sprint,

Possibly, though that isn't really relevant to the current discussion.

or fighting for that matter...

Unless we're talking about Shrek's twin sister here, I kind of doubt it.

 

[ChrisL]

They did that with Blacks and the Japanese in WWII until they realized that both were capable of much more. Now it isn't a problem except for racists. Same mentality here... just sexism.

Well, I can understand that affairs and things are going to happen when keeping such close quarters. That's only natural, not really sexism at all. However, I think that those people are just disobedient and don't have the self discipline to make good soldiers anyway. That goes for both the men and women.

 

[Bodi]

The occasional female general or desperate woman defending her homestead isn't exactly the same thing. :2razz:



I'm sorry, but again, women simply are not those people.



They're already failing miserably. That's exactly why the Obama Administration is forcing the military to go out of its way to lower standards so that they can join anyway.

It's disgusting.



Yup, and women flunk out at two or three times that rate, even during regular, non-combat training. Your point?



They shouldn't be. It is pointless, and it's going to get a lot of good people killed.

Again, the military isn't about feel good "self-esteem" building, pal. It's about ruthlessly killing people.

I'm not sure what part of this fact you're failing to grasp.



Then things were functioning as they should have. However, I would point out that you would probably have had a team more likely to meet those physical requirements if you had only hired men.



You've clearly never spent twelve hours on a firing range twiddling your thumbs because some chubby female soldier insists on emptying every magazine given to her directly into the dirt 15 feet in front of her foxhole hours after everyone else has qualified. :roll:

I'm sorry man, but I'm speaking from experience here. The vast majority of female soldiers I've served with simply suck.

They've got no killer instinct to speak of, and they struggle to keep up physically. The rare exceptions to this rule really are not common enough to justify changing the entire way we do things.

If they fail to pass then they should be out.
Standards should remain the same... lowering them is stupid.
If a woman can pass... even if it is just one... then she should be in.
If evidence shows that anybody... man or woman, is responsible in getting others killed then they should be out.

I see you have experience so I will defer to much of your judgement regarding most women not cutting it but I simply feel that it is a bad idea to deny people the Constitutional right to try.

Hell, make the requirements even harder for all I care. There are probably a lot of men that shouldn't be in there as well.

 

[Bodi]

Well, I can understand that affairs and things are going to happen when keeping such close quarters. That's only natural, not really sexism at all. However, I think that those people are just disobedient and don't have the self discipline to make good soldiers anyway. That goes for both the men and women.

If romance was the argument then that should be the argument. As it is though Gathos is the only one making non-sexist arguments as far as I can tell.

 

[Gathomas88]

They are not. The average height for a woman is 5 feet 5 inches.

Which is about right for a young teenage boy.

Do you look at women? Most women are NOT the size of a 12-year-old boy. :roll:

So long as they're not overweight, they generally have about the same muscle tone.

Ultimately, however; this is besides the point. What I was getting at is that just because women have done something in the past, doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good idea.

There were a lot of stupid things done in the past. We don't do them anymore for a reason.