- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 10
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
vergiss said:Hint: something in the polls forum needs a POLL.
This book reference bears no weight on your lengthy anti-feminist argument, a man once wrote an emotional book, "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus."ptsdkid said:Let me be clear. I love women for their many contributions to society including but not limited to their care giving and mothering roles. However, I am dead set against women in combat units, and to a lesser degree, unhappy and marginally concerned about women obtaining any military occupation especially during wartime. I’m all for women assuming a non-military Rosie the Riveter type role during wartime.
Wasn’t it a woman that wrote a bestseller titled, “Men are from Battleship Galactica, Women are from Love ship Greenpeace?”
Did you actually read the book or just judge it by its cover?I may have gotten the title wrong but the theme of the book acknowledged that women are better emotionally equipped to handle the tribulations of a soap opera saga from couch side, rather than squeezing the trigger of an M-16 rifle at an approaching enemy soldier while standing and trembling inside of a foxhole.
Thier body is what they make of it, women are just as capable of carrying all this equipment that you mention below as some men are.Aside from a few lady wrestlers and a handful of masculine lesbian butches--the biological makeup of most women makes demanding combat roles an impossibility.
Good for you.I remember humping a 75 pound rucksack up the treacherous mountainside of the A-Shau Valley in Vietnam during hot climate and high humidity. I also carried a 22-24 pound M-60 machine gun, heavy ammo belts, and weighty water canteens. There were a couple of effeminate cherries that caved in to the strenuous demand. Those guys were quickly shuffled back to REMF status at our base camp.
Again, your judgement of women is based on stereo types.The point being with everything unfair and unequal in war and body structure--I see no way for a woman (any woman) to have been able to proceed in that combat setting--let alone survive it.
This part of your argument makes it sound like you want to restrict women to the kitchen and take away thier voting rights, then place blacks in seperate parts of the bus, etc, etc.Bill Clinton helped bring political correctness and e-masculinity into the United States military. With the advent of the total acceptance of gays in the military during his administration and the emasculation thereof--women could now call on their feminist sisters to help complete the feminization of our military, you know, with thier equal rights agenda and all
This is true, even if the women are not around. The women make choices on this matter too, and sometimes, although unethical, leads to a boost in morale for both the female and male.With young men’s hormones in a constant uproar, and the availability of women troops to satisfy their needs--the role of a militarily focused warrior had now transferred to the role of a wanton sex-craved young man.
Its not a woman's fault that a man doesn't understand NO.With rapes, women troops getting pregnant, and incidents like the Tail hook Affair--sensitivity and further emasculation classes for young men were in order.
This statement is not true, as this type of training is only done once per year, and does not take prescedence over combat trainingTraining to kill for combat now took a back seat for a new protocol featuring the sensitive, caring, and peaceful demeanor of all new male recruits.
This is another pointless statement that means nothing. It only shows that you are very willing to make fun of the appearance of one politician that you disagree with, without making fun of the other (Condi's death gap in her teeth).The president of the United States is our CIC (Commander-in-Chief) of our combat units. Knowing a woman’s emotional handicap and inability to function properly in a combat setting--doesn’t it alarm you to the possibility of having Hillary as our CIC overseeing all operations of our combat personnel? I have no problem with having Condi Rice assume the position of CIC, for she acts like she owns a complete set with her brilliant performance as Secretary of State. Just because Hillary looks like a man does not mean that she possesses the emotional nerve needed to be a military leader--let alone our CIC.
ptsdkid said:However, I am dead set against women in combat units, and to a lesser degree, unhappy and marginally concerned about women obtaining any military occupation especially during wartime. I’m all for women assuming a non-military Rosie the Riveter type role during wartime.
Wasn’t it a woman that wrote a bestseller titled, “Men are from Battleship Galactica, Women are from Love ship Greenpeace?” I may have gotten the title wrong but the theme of the book acknowledged that women are better emotionally equipped to handle the tribulations of a soap opera saga from couch side, rather than squeezing the trigger of an M-16 rifle at an approaching enemy soldier while standing and trembling inside of a foxhole.
Aside from a few lady wrestlers and a handful of masculine lesbian butches--the biological makeup of most women makes demanding combat roles an impossibility.
I remember humping a 75 pound rucksack up the treacherous mountainside of the A-Shau Valley in Vietnam during hot climate and high humidity. I also carried a 22-24 pound M-60 machine gun, heavy ammo belts, and weighty water canteens. There were a couple of effeminate cherries that caved in to the strenuous demand. Those guys were quickly shuffled back to REMF status at our base camp. The point being with everything unfair and unequal in war and body structure--I see no way for a woman (any woman) to have been able to proceed in that combat setting--let alone survive it.
Bill Clinton helped bring political correctness and e-masculinity into the United States military. With the advent of the total acceptance of gays in the military during his administration and the emasculation thereof--women could now call on their feminist sisters to help complete the feminization of our military, you know, with their equal rights agenda and all.
With young men’s hormones in a constant uproar, and the availability of women troops to satisfy their needs--the role of a militarily focused warrior had now transferred to the role of a wanton sex-craved young man.
With rapes, women troops getting pregnant, and incidents like the Tail hook Affair--sensitivity and further emasculation classes for young men were in order. Training to kill for combat now took a back seat for a new protocol featuring the sensitive, caring, and peaceful demeanor of all new male recruits.
The president of the United States is our CIC (Commander-in-Chief) of our combat units. Knowing a woman’s emotional handicap and inability to function properly in a combat setting--doesn’t it alarm you to the possibility of having Hillary as our CIC overseeing all operations of our combat personnel? I have no problem with having Condi Rice assume the position of CIC, for she acts like she owns a complete set with her brilliant performance as Secretary of State. Just because Hillary looks like a man does not mean that she possesses the emotional nerve needed to be a military leader--let alone our CIC.
Caine said:This book reference bears no weight on your lengthy anti-feminist argument, a man once wrote an emotional book, "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus."
Did you actually read the book or just judge it by its cover?
Thier body is what they make of it, women are just as capable of carrying all this equipment that you mention below as some men are.
Good for you.
Again, your judgement of women is based on stereo types.
This part of your argument makes it sound like you want to restrict women to the kitchen and take away thier voting rights, then place blacks in seperate parts of the bus, etc, etc.
This is true, even if the women are not around. The women make choices on this matter too, and sometimes, although unethical, leads to a boost in morale for both the female and male.
Its not a woman's fault that a man doesn't understand NO. This statement is not true, as this type of training is only done once per year, and does not take prescedence over combat training
This is another pointless statement that means nothing. It only shows that you are very willing to make fun of the appearance of one politician that you disagree with, without making fun of the other (Condi's death gap in her teeth).
By the way; you still have failed to respond to my arguments on VA benefits and PTSD.
Woman CAN be capable of all this, if they want to be. Just because a select group of women were unable to do it, does not mean it isn't possible. Also, what did YOU use to Cammo your face in the military. I remember using something that looked awfully like a makeup kit, so your remarks bear no influence on this debate, and only work to discredit your arguments.ptsdkid said:Women are not capable of carrying all that weight (especially in a combat venue). Women didn't qualify for firefighter positions in the states because some of the grueling qualification tests (in certain states like Ohio) demanded that they carry a 150 pound dummy some 100 yards or so. Not one woman passed the test (and I believe there was a female wrestler there as well). Not only would they be forced to carry as much weight in a combat setting--but they would also need to be alert to dangerous surroundings. There is no time in combat to be fumbling with a makeup kit.
Being someone who HAS worked with women in the military, I can tell you that they are capable of all three. Several women in the military are in better physical shape than the men.This isn't a matter of restricting women to the kitchen, rather it's putting qualified people into military positions that are fit, capable and emotionally in-tuned to do the job. Women fail at all three.
My reaction to this comment could get me banned, but in the future, do not use such comments as they bear no influence on the debate, and only work to discredit your arguments.I said earlier that I love women, afterall I had married three of them.
Your comments bear no influence on this debate and only furthur discredit your arguments.Women should stick to what they do best. Women in combat is akin to me injecting milk into my breasts to try and feed a baby.
All this garbage can be summed up in the fact that you don't agree that men should take responsibility for thier own irresponsible actions when dealing with thier hormones. The US Justice system, as well as the UCMJ disagree with you, and thier opinion on the matter outweights your own sexist agenda.Again, it isn't a matter of men understanding the word 'no' when it comes to raping or groping a woman. This is the military. The objective of the military is to train young men to become warriors. Adding women to the mix naturally throws this objective into total disarray. Do I need to give you a lesson on the birds and the bees? Social experimentation is fine for a liberal/Communist anti war rally at Harvard Square, but when the defense of our country via the military is on the line--I want the most qualified men to rely on--not some hysterical emotionally inept woman.
I have yet to see a rebuttal to my claim that VA benefits ARE in fact being cut. I posted a VFW article on the issue, specifically dealing with the issue of benefits for those with PTSD.I answered those questions you had on VA benefits and PTSD. Perhaps you didn't like my answers, or perhaps you weren't specific enough with your questions.
An English Saxon Princess led an invasion of Jutland in the 6th Century. In the 8th Century Queen Aethelburgh destroyed Taunton. In the 9th Century Queen Thyra of Denmark led her army against the Germans.
In the 10th Century Aethelflaed, Lady of Mercia led troops against the Vikings and Olga of Russia ended a revolt in which her husband had died.
The Viking Sagas and Saxo Grammaticus' "History of the Danes" mention many warrior women. Hetha, Visna and Vebiorg led companies of the Danish army. Sela and Alvid were pirates. Stikla ran away from home to become a warrior. Rusilla fought against her brother for the throne. Gurith took part in a battle to help her son. Freydis Eiriksdottir, Auðr and Þórdis all used weapons against their enemies
Another dumbass statement.M14 Shooter said:I do not want to have to rely on Twiggy to pull me from the turret of my burning M1.
happykat said:Another dumbass statement.
There are "Twiggy"-type people of both genders.
The average woman in the military will be able to carry a comparable amount to that of an average man in the military could or they wouldn't be in the MOS they are in.M14 Shooter said:The average man is larger, heavier and stronger than the average woman.
True or false?
The average woman can physically do things that the average man cannot, also.the averagre man can physically do things that the avergage woman cannot.
True or false?
Depends on how fat your ass is and the strength of the person rescuing you is ....not the gender.Its MUCH more likely that the average man would be able to pull me from a turrent fool anf out the hatch than the average woman.
True of false.
No, thank you for clearly showing that you are indeed the dumbass.Thank you very much. Who is the dumbass?
Except that women are not held to the same physical standards as men.happykat said:The average woman in the military will be able to carry a comparable amount to that of an average man in the military could or they wouldn't be in the MOS they are in.
Functions related to chilbirth arent relebvant here.The average woman can physically do things that the average man cannot, also.
And the strength of the average man v the strength of the average woman?Depends on how fat your ass is and the strength of the person rescuing you is...not the gender.
As the desert said to the grain of sand.No, thank you for clearly showing that you are indeed the dumbass.
ptsdkid said:Women are not capable of carrying all that weight (especially in a combat venue). Women didn't qualify for firefighter positions in the states because some of the grueling qualification tests (in certain states like Ohio) demanded that they carry a 150 pound dummy some 100 yards or so. Not one woman passed the test (and I believe there was a female wrestler there as well). Not only would they be forced to carry as much weight in a combat setting--but they would also need to be alert to dangerous surroundings. There is no time in combat to be fumbling with a makeup kit..
americanwoman said:Well you can't expect us to not reapply our lipstick.And don't you know we could break our nails trying to carry something!
happykat said:Dear M14 Shooter,
It is clear that you have a stereotypical ideal of women and their abilities and their body type. You are obviously a dinosaur-brain who thinks gender roles are cut and dry. I have but one hope that you do not go forth and multiply.
Sincerely,
happykat
P.S.
You're also a dumbass.
ptsdkid said:and an emotionally unstable disposition
akyron said:Oh my! Boy are you about to get yelled at....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?