Females in combat zones/jobs. Good Idea? Bad idea?

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
How do they deal with the toilet problem?

I've noticed that none of the advocates of unisex restrooms have to use them.  Having worked at a factory, I've had the most unpleasant experience of being forced to use a unisex restroom.  It's a very uncomfortable and embarrassing arrangement.

Perhaps some of the women wouldn't mind, but they're not the only people on the submarine.

By the way, by "unisex restroom" I'm not talking about a single-toilet affair as those in some gasoline stations.  I'm talking about a multiple-stall restroom.  Few Americans will have encounted a multiple-stall unisex restroom.

Wrap something around for a skirt and/or find cover or just go sitting down with pants on for example depending on dictation of circumstances.

You ask people whom you are in a unit with to look away and they usually have enough respect not to look, they want their privacy too.

TIGRESS

[AKIron]

Having yet to weigh in on this subject I will now add my two cents. From my experience women are more suited to no holds barred, knock down drag out, kick you in groin when you are down combat than men. Until a nail is broken, then it's a time out.

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Tigeress
You ask people whom you are in a unit with to look away and they usually have enough respect not to look, they want their privacy too.

That's not exactly what I meant; even though no one looks, the situation is just so horribly awkward that I don't think it's fair to ask the soldiers to have to deal with it on top of all the other crap soldiers deal with.  The women may not mind the uncomfortable situation if it means that they get to be liberated or whatever, but perhaps they should consider the men.  They didn't, after all, ask for the situation; women did.  At least have segregated-sex units.

About the issue of bunking with women; I mentioned earlier that I am unfond of my sex drive.  My way of dealing with biological urges of this sort is to take care not to place myself into situations where these urges could affect my actions.  Imagine, then, why I'd feel it unfair if I were forced to sleep in a barracks with women who may or may not be attractive to me, and who may or not be attracted to me.  And I could indeed be forced to do so; though I'll never join the army, it's entirely possible that a draft could be called.

Frankly, I find the entire debate a bit ridiculous.  Arguing over the "privilege" of going to war is something beyond my understanding.  The army's the last place I want to be as a man, and I can't imagine how it'd be more appealing to a woman.

And while I don't pretend that men haven't held power over women throughout history, it seems to me that women aren't exactly blameless in the matter, especially concerning attempts to get power back and then some.  It seems that they tend to generalize "men" and trample on them all in retribution for real or imagined injustices, regardless of whether or not the individual men they trample are unfair to women.

[KgB]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Yup

We are utter failures at sperm donating hahahahaha

Just kidding dear.

Yes I agree there are things men are better equiped for.

TIGERESS

I dont care what they say  Tigeress,i will gladly give my life for my womans belief:)

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Women kill men in war.

Nothing anyone says can alter that fact.

Vietnamese Women at War

These women were the wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters of men recruited into military service; and because the war lasted so long, women from more than one generation of the same family often participated in the struggle. Some learned to fire weapons and lay traps, or to serve as village patrol guards and intelligence agents; others were propagandists and recruiters or helped keep the supply lines flowing.

To recap: There was the woman astronaut, then the much more than a woman astronaut. Since I never got an answer from you on your view of the role of astronaut, we`ll go with mine. It is not gender decided.........BUT more importantly it is not a combat role and has nothing to do with the subject at hand. HOWEVER .........if and when the first  firefight breaks out on a launch pad (possibly PMS induced) this chick has my full approval to lock and load.
National Inquirer: The real story about the space station nail polish wars.

Sheesh!

Then on to the reference again to the Mighty Russian women of combat. Great Googly Woogly! Russia would put field mice and gophers into combat if they could teach them to shoot. Desperation is wacky and Russia friggen SUCKS! I certainly would not want to pattern the treatment of our female population based on Russia`s shining example........ or any damn thing else as far as that goes.

Now to the show stopper of all show stoppers.
Look what the female warriors of Vietnam did. A great shining example of how the female should play a part in the combat role.
Here`s a news flash...Nam also used very, very young children in the combat role even to the extent of booby trapping them.
(New window sticker fad for soccer Mom vans. ( My grade school student is a sapper  Number 298312)
Guess you would like to follow this highly developed country`s example.
What do you think would be a good entry level age for our children to enter combat......6.....7....8.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Tigeress

Have a look see at this link--> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&q=servicewomen+rape+iraq

TIGERESS

Yeah it makes a great argument for keeping women out of the combat role.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070809/COMMENTARY/108090012

Excerpts:

 

The problem becomes even more complex in the context of women serving in the military. In their combat roles, service women in Iraq are subject to both violence from the war and assault from fellow service members or superiors. According to a 2003 study, about one-third of female veterans visiting the Veterans Administration for health care reported having been subject to rape or attempted rape during their military service.

Note that it says "reported". If there are equal qualifications, why didn`t the G.I. Janes kick some serious behind?
If they are not qualified for a combatant role why are they there?

The combination of sexual assault with the psychological trauma from combat known to contribute to PTSD in military personnel has created an environment in which an estimated 20 percent of servicewomen will develop this condition — 4 times the rate in the civilian population and more than double the rate of PTSD in male soldiers (about 8 percent)

Four times the rate in male soldiers. Hmmmmmmmm. Evidently not suited for the combat role. I would assume, even for the reported cases that are factual, the rape situations would most likely be due to the lowering of the physical qualification standards to allow the women to be there. In other words...the inability to defend themselves against an attack.
It`s either equal qualification standards or not. Evidently not.
This should also be a prime consideration on the subject of women as combatants. Consider a position overrun by the enemy resulting in close hand to hand combat. If they don`t have the ability to defend themselves adequately against a rape attempt from a U.S. male, they certainly wouldn`t be able to put up much of a defense against an adrenaline charged, combat hardened enemy. Which leads us right back to the point that it would then fall to the male soldier to defend the females in these situation greatly reducing the chances of overcoming the assault. Compromise in a combat situation should be kept to a minimum at all costs.

At any rate, both of the above statistics are a great argument and a blaring example of why women should not be in combat situations.
There is much, much more the U.S. female can contribute, with a high degree of skill, than being a combatant. We are not that desperate by no means.

Wrap something around for a skirt and/or find cover or just go sitting down with pants on for example depending on dictation of circumstances.

That is possibly the most degrading comment I have seen here to date against the female population. Insulting even.
You are asking that every ounce of dignity and femininity be discarded.
You are suggesting that a woman should be viewed with no more respect than a common alley dog. You are in fact suggesting that there should be no differences and no respect allowed for women.For what????? We are not desperate enough to degrade our female population in that manner.

You ask people whom you are in a unit with to look away and they usually have enough respect not to look, they want their privacy too.

Jeeeeeeeeeeeez. Sustained position defense with intense fire...."OK...everyone turn around. Jane has to take a leak"

Do you sweat testosterone or something?
I invited Mrs. Jackal into run through your posts here.
I wanted a woman`s perspective for reference.
Her opinion: "Those views are either coming from a man in an attempt to yank chains or someone in bad need of sex change surgery."l

[Bluedog]

Originally posted by Tigeress
quote:
 

This is what I zeroed in on Benny...

The men are the problem. Like it or not, the women in the outfit affect the men and no, this is not a matter of education but a matter of biology.

That is the same old tired excuse some men have been spouting forever.



TIGERESS [/B]

Possibly, even probably, because it has been true forever?

Humans, when you get right down to it, are animals. (we are neither mineral nor vegetable)
Every species of animal(and for that matter, vegetable) on this planet has gender roles in their social structure, thats the way nature works.
Can you think of any other species which has deliberate female combatants?
Combatants, not 'breadwinners'.
Lionesses hunt, but do they protect the pride?   (probably not the best example........lions may in fact be the exception to the general rule)
The wolf ***** is an essential part of the pack, and she will even fight for position within it, but does she put herself in a position to face off against a rival pack's alpha male?   (Defense of herself or her young against an immediate and inescapable threat doesn't count btw)
Many primates will in effect have wars, Chimps for instance will deliberately seek out and attack other chimps not of their group.
Do the female chimps get involved in the fight?
Nature seems to think that females, as bearers of life, are far too valuable to risk in power struggles.
Is political/social correctness more or less right than nature?
I'm not particularly religious, but if I were, I would equate Nature to God's Will, is P.C more right than the way God intended things to be?
Did God, nature, the universe get it wrong?  Or did we?
Both sides of the argument cannot be right.

P.C.  without limits and constraints equals anarchy btw., there has to be lines drawn somewhere.
IMHO, taking PC and equality beyond the lines nature draws between the sexes is pure human arrogance, thinking we know better.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Yeah it makes a great argument for keeping women out of the combat role.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070809/COMMENTARY/108090012

Excerpts:

 

Note that it says "reported". If there are equal qualifications, why didn`t the G.I. Janes kick some serious behind?
If they are not qualified for a combatant role why are they there?

 

Four times the rate in male soldiers. Hmmmmmmmm. Evidently not suited for the combat role. I would assume, even for the reported cases that are factual, the rape situations would most likely be due to the lowering of the physical qualification standards to allow the women to be there. In other words...the inability to defend themselves against an attack.
It`s either equal qualification standards or not. Evidently not.
This should also be a prime consideration on the subject of women as combatants. Consider a position overrun by the enemy resulting in close hand to hand combat. If they don`t have the ability to defend themselves adequately against a rape attempt from a U.S. male, they certainly wouldn`t be able to put up much of a defense against an adrenaline charged, combat hardened enemy. Which leads us right back to the point that it would then fall to the male soldier to defend the females in these situation greatly reducing the chances of overcoming the assault. Compromise in a combat situation should be kept to a minimum at all costs.

At any rate, both of the above statistics are a great argument and a blaring example of why women should not be in combat situations.
There is much, much more the U.S. female can contribute, with a high degree of skill, than being a combatant. We are not that desperate by no means.

 

That is possibly the most degrading comment I have seen here to date against the female population. Insulting even.
You are asking that every ounce of dignity and femininity be discarded.
You are suggesting that a woman should be viewed with no more respect than a common alley dog. You are in fact suggesting that there should be no differences and no respect allowed for women.For what????? We are not desperate enough to degrade our female population in that manner.

 

Jeeeeeeeeeeeez. Sustained position defense with intense fire...."OK...everyone turn around. Jane has to take a leak"

Do you sweat testosterone or something?
I invited Mrs. Jackal into run through your posts here.
I wanted a woman`s perspective for reference.
Her opinion: "Those views are either coming from a man in an attempt to yank chains or someone in bad need of sex change surgery."l

Has Mrs. Jackal ever been on a boat or gone hiking and needed to go and there were men around in the group with her? She would do what we all do... garner as much privacy as she can then answer nature's call.

Benny is asking me very pointed and direct questions and I am acquainted with him and consider him a good guy, dear.

Fact is, you are combative with me and insulting with me and have been since day one. This is typically the pattern... first try to intimidate or dominate an "uppity" woman then failing that attack her femininity.

Sorry if I make you angry Jackal. I advise you to keep it civil and keep your crass personal attacks out of the public forum in the future.

If you slander me and personally attack me again, Jackal, you will be reported, Ok?

I think I am being more than fair with you in view of your insinuations, so consider yourself warned.

TIGERESS

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Bluedog
Possibly, even probably, because it has been true forever?

Humans, when you get right down to it, are animals. (we are neither mineral nor vegetable)
Every species of animal(and for that matter, vegetable) on this planet has gender roles in their social structure, thats the way nature works.
Can you think of any other species which has deliberate female combatants?
Combatants, not 'breadwinners'.
Lionesses hunt, but do they protect the pride?   (probably not the best example........lions may in fact be the exception to the general rule)
The wolf ***** is an essential part of the pack, and she will even fight for position within it, but does she put herself in a position to face off against a rival pack's alpha male?   (Defense of herself or her young against an immediate and inescapable threat doesn't count btw)
Many primates will in effect have wars, Chimps for instance will deliberately seek out and attack other chimps not of their group.
Do the female chimps get involved in the fight?
Nature seems to think that females, as bearers of life, are far too valuable to risk in power struggles.
Is political/social correctness more or less right than nature?
I'm not particularly religious, but if I were, I would equate Nature to God's Will, is P.C more right than the way God intended things to be?
Did God, nature, the universe get it wrong?  Or did we?
Both sides of the argument cannot be right.

P.C.  without limits and constraints equals anarchy btw., there has to be lines drawn somewhere.
IMHO, taking PC and equality beyond the lines nature draws between the sexes is pure human arrogance, thinking we know better.

There is no other species of mammals like humans. In addition to instincts we were given an unbelievably powerful intellect.

By my own nature, and it's true for most other women, I have no interest in fighting and killing and going to war. That is a male game, in my view.

Can women fight and kill and go to war? yes, and have done so and did it for their own reasons and usually by their own choice.

Should all women be required to go to war? NO NO NO
In my opinion, only those women who want to and can cut it in their assigned jobs.

Women and men, by our unique natures, are different. But both are human with some common human instincts.

Personally, I don't think anyone should go to war, ever, but it happens and sometimes it is necessary.

If you truely feel women should not be in combat zones then don't talk about it, do something about it. Write your congress, organize demonstrations, picket the Pentagon, start a blog, become a politician so you have more say in the goings on of government.

I see some of you guys going in and out of your anger zones over this discussion. With the exception of Jackal and his extremely rude and crass attacks aimed at me personally, I don't really see a problem. If he does it again he will be reported.

Different people have different views.

That is why it is good to discuss things...

TIGERESS

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Has Mrs. Jackal ever been in the military?

Mrs Jackal has never been a military combatant.
BTW you do realize you are asking for the very info you refused to give don`t you?

Has she ever been on a boat or gone hiking and needed to go and there were men around in the group with her?

She has never came under fire or been in a combat situation in any outdoor activities.

She would do what we all do... garner as much privacy as she can then answer nature's call.

I don`t know what you consider we as used in this context, but speaking for her, she conducts herself with the dignity of the woman she is.
She certainly does not nor we would she allow herself to stoop to the alley dog actions that you suggest above. She also does not, nor has she ever shown any desire to assume a male role. She is a woman and quite secure with the fact. She is very proud of her gender and has no desire to be anything else.

 

Fact is, you are combative with me and insultive with me have been since day one.

In this thread you are trying to promote and justify the female role in a military combatants role. Now you are saying that I have been combative with you by not agreeing with your views...and that is insultive to you.
In my view and my opinion if anyone here has been insultive it has not been me. If my opinions differ from you I will state so.

This is typically the patterm... first try to intimidate or dominate an "uppity" woman then failing that attack her femininity.

So now is the time to pull the feminine card huh? If  you feel that my disagreeing with you is an attempt to dominate you, then you are very confused. I would be hard pressed to get so totaly out of it mentaly that I believed I could dominate or that anyone could be dominated in an internet forum setting.......or for that matter it would even be considered possible.
"Uppity"woman is certainly not how I view you.
In my view it is you who has expressed the desire to discard any femininity.
You either wish to be viewed as feminine or not. That is up to you. It`s not an "equality when I want it and not when I don`t" situation.

Sorry if I make you angry Jackal.

You don`t have to worry about that.
It`s very hard to get angry with someone while you are laughing.

I advise you to keep it civil.

Is that an attempt to dominate me or are you just trying to put an "uppity" male in his place? l

Notice: The last comment is said in total jest and in a humorous context. Any confusion , misunderstanding or sensitivity issue derived from said comment is totaly the responsibility of the reader.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Mrs Jackal has never been a military combatant.
BTW you do realize you are asking for the very info you refused to give don`t you?

 

She has never came under fire or been in a combat situation in any outdoor activities.

 

I don`t know what you consider we as used in this context, but speaking for her, she conducts herself with the dignity of the woman she is.
She certainly does not nor we would she allow herself to stoop to the alley dog actions that you suggest above. She also does not, nor has she ever shown any desire to assume a male role. She is a woman and quite secure with the fact. She is very proud of her gender and has no desire to be anything else.

 
 

In this thread you are trying to promote and justify the female role in a military combatants role. Now you are saying that I have been combative with you by not agreeing with your views...and that is insultive to you.
In my view and my opinion if anyone here has been insultive it has not been me. If my opinions differ from you I will state so.

 

So now is the time to pull the feminine card huh? If  you feel that my disagreeing with you is an attempt to dominate you, then you are very confused. I would be hard pressed to get so totaly out of it mentaly that I believed I could dominate or that anyone could be dominated in an internet forum setting.......or for that matter it would even be considered possible.
"Uppity"woman is certainly not how I view you.
In my view it is you who has expressed the desire to discard any femininity.
You either wish to be viewed as feminine or not. That is up to you. It`s not an "equality when I want it and not when I don`t" situation.


 

You don`t have to worry about that.
It`s very hard to get angry with someone while you are laughing.



 

Is that an attempt to dominate me or are you just trying to put an "uppity" male in his place? l

Notice: The last comment is said in total jest and in a humorous context. Any confusion , misunderstanding or sensitivity issue derived from said comment is totaly the responsibility of the reader.

Have it your way Jackal... consider yourself reported.

TIGERESS

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Have it your way Jackal... consider yourself reported.

TIGERESS

If you feel the need to report me for having an opinion and not agreeing with your views instead of actualy discussing the topic, then so be it.
If you will go back and read what I have posted concerning the very blaringly obvious arguments and results to date and data against the female being put in a combative roll I think you will find I have made some very good points and supported them.
The argument you seem to want to stick with is that women have the ability. They certainly do.
I and everyone else have the ability to go jump off a tall building. Without much research, I believe we can agree the outcome would not be favorable.
You have stated that you base your opinion on "the female right to choose".
The right to choose by male or female is only a personal matter when it doesn`t compromise or endanger everyone around you. That`s where the ability plays a part. If you have the ability to compromise an entire operation and you choose to do so standing on the grounds of women`s equality rights or right of choice even to the extent of being detrimental to the females in question, then something is very wrong with that picture IMHO.
The gender equality issue can be pushed to the point of ludicrous.
There is so much more that women of the military can do and contribute greatly without having to put them in the blood and guts.

[Donzo]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Skuzzy and Waffle and HiTech will make their own determinations as to violations of the forum rules.

 

Then why not just leave it at that and not keep it going?

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Donzo
Then why not just leave it at that and not keep it going?

Good point. I deleted that reply to Jackal1.

Perhaps you also wouldn't mind deleting the quote of it as well?

Thanks,

TIGERESS

[lazs2]

tigress.. over and over you claim to understand that men and women are different.. but then.. you go on to say that men should be forced to be the way that you want them to be... against their nature.. so that a few manly women can do a mans job when it suits em.

You also seem to feel that it is fine for women to be sexual objects when it suits em and for who it suits em but that how men react should be subject to rules that you make up.

You claim that it is I who am the bad guy here but.. I don't rape women.. I don't harass women.   It is often difficult to ignore em when they are being immature and slutty or when they are doing their childish flirting.   but..   that is ok with you..   they can use their sex for whatever but men must be subservient to their desire?

If they want to be a sex object we must drool but... wearing the same clothes.. if they want to be men that day... we must treat em as men?  

You have never been a man so there is no way you can understand what a man feels and why.. and it's not that we won't tell you... it's that no matter what... you will NEVER understand.

You can't be like us because you are nothing like us.   That is fair tho because it goes both ways.

This is the root of all the problems involved in men and women working together.   As the job becomes more physical.. the male and female traits come out more.    You do not want to be treated as an equal.. you would not like to be treated as I treat the men around me.   you would cry.   not all the time but.. you would.. and.. you would take it in a way that I can't understand.

life is not the movies.

lazs