Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bluedog on December 13, 2007, 11:23:02 AM
-
I was discussing this with my sister today , and after seeing the rape of servicewomen thread, thought I would throw the question out here and see what people think.
My personal thoughts are that a combat zone is the very last place a woman should be anywhere near if she can possibly avoid it.
Sorry ladies, raw instinct tells me it's wrong.
I may be a chivalrous fool, but I believe women should be protected and shielded from harm, not deliberately placed directly in it's path.
Then again, there are some situations where a woman present is vital in some cultures, for instance patting down a civilian woman in the street.
I believe a female soldier, particularly a pretty one, will distract the men around her from the job at hand, and that those men will take risks for her sake in a hopeless situation where they perhaps would not for a man, possibly making a bad situation worse.
I also believe a female soldier is somewhat at risk from the men around her, sexual assault is going to happen.
War, killing and being surrounded by death has always inspired lust and an urge to procreate in men, some in more gentle ways than others.
It is why armies throughout history have had camp followers, it is why the Japanese had comfort women, it is why rape and pillage is a common turn of phrase, it is why we have 'baby boomers', it is why the two oldest professions are soldiery and prostitution, in short it is a fact.....fighting men are horny.
To some, the nearest female will do, weather she like it or not.
Having said all that......my Mum was a reserve soldier. Infantry, M-60 gunner ,platoon and drill seargant at various times
I am fully aware that it is possible for a woman to make just as effective a soldier as a man, but is it right for them to do so?
-
It's been going down hill ever since we gave them the right to vote...
:D
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
I may be a chivalrous fool, but I believe women should be protected and shielded from harm, not deliberately placed directly in it's path.
gotta watch out here, some may infact call that sexist not chivalrous
Originally posted by Bluedog
I believe a female soldier, particularly a pretty one, will distract the men around her from the job at hand, and that those men will take risks for her sake in a hopeless situation where they perhaps would not for a man, possibly making a bad situation worse.
or....maybe they will go the extra mile to save a trooper in an impossible situation and actualy pull it off!
a male trooper may be left for dead in the same situation....possible....
but why would making a heroic sacrifice be considered a bad deal? if there is a chance at all then i think most servicemen would risk it all for either male or female friends...thats what love is.
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Sorry ladies, raw instinct tells me it's wrong.
Perhaps you should not let primitive instincts influence you so much. You choose to be a man ... or an animal.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
gotta watch out here, some may infact call that sexist not chivalrous
Sexist would be if I said they just cant do it as well as a man can.
I believe they can, I'm just not sure they should.
-
i think it depends more on the motivation of the woman than on the men, women were in combat in Russia in WW2 to save their country, that's OK, but if you are talking about some 19 year old who joins the US army just to get a free education, i say no.
-
I say yes, provided there is no special treatment expected or given whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Perhaps you should not let primitive instincts influence you so much. You choose to be a man ... or an animal.
Instincts like that one is what makes me a man.
If you don't have an urge to protect those weaker than yourself from harm, it isn't a problem.
If that were the case, you would have no one to protect anyway.
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Instincts like that one is what makes me a man.
If you don't have an urge to protect those weaker than yourself from harm, it isn't a problem.
If that were the case, you would have no one to protect anyway.
How old are you Bluedog?
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Sexist would be if I said they just cant do it as well as a man can.
I believe they can, I'm just not sure they should.
a good point, but try telling one of the russian sniper heroins of WW2 this and they might find a point to argue on...or two... (or 300+ confirmed kills for one girl)
S!
edit:
Originally posted by Bluedog
If you don't have an urge to protect those weaker than yourself from harm, i
oh god, now you gone and done it. maybe your first post wasnt sexist, but that really is very sexist indeed.
and very untrue in many cases.
did you know that women have faster reactions and are better able to cope with G-force than men? did you also know that women make better undercover agents than men?
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Sexist would be if I said they just cant do it as well as a man can.
I believe they can, I'm just not sure they should.
I don't think they can,phisicly.
-
A soldier is a soldier is a soldier. If something or someone can get the job done, they should be allowed to, no matter how unconventional it might seem. If a woman can satisfy the physical and mental criteria, nothing should disallow her from doing her duty.
-
I'm of two minds:
First, I believe women have the same potential ability as men to serve in combat. Women combatants is a historical fact, and BEYOND the Russians in WWII (for example the Norse/Germanic shieldmaidens, and many of the Celtic tribes men and women shared in combat equally). Furthermore, if a woman wants to serve her country she has every right to do so.
But...
I HATE the thought of a woman's life in danger. There's just something I find fundamentally wrong about putting a woman in a position where she's deliberately targeted by lethal force, and exposing her to the horror of combat. Partly, it's because I have a desire to protect, shelter, and take care of her: better *I* have to face that danger than she.
I also tend to put women on something of a pedestal, that a woman is more innately innocent and good (I'm a writer, and it's VERY rare that I create a woman character who is undeniably evil). I'm perfectly aware of the flaw in that reasoning, but that's my belief.
-
You believe in something you know is flawed? :lol
There's nothing more wrong about women in combat than there is about men or children. It's all barbaric.
-
Bluedog I've met a few ROK SF Women in S. Korea that would smile from ear to ear while they kicked yer arse.
:O
Women can be tuff!
Mac
-
Oh man. I really shouldnt even write this but here goes...
Retired Army here. Combat Arms. Infantry.
Combat Arms involve more than just the Infantry. You have Tankers and Artillery that also fall within this realm. However, all 3 of the arms of ground combatants are in the dirt, more or less, the same in-theatre.
Women should not be allowed in Combat Arms IMHO for the following reasons (and none of them are because of being raped by their foxhole buddy...)
1. Physical ability. The female endurance in a field enviornment is hindered by muscle mass that are not a concern for a typical male. It is quite common in a field training excercise or combat in theatre to carry a ruck sack with a full combat load. A combat load can be easily in excess of 100lbs depending on ones particular job. Add to that 100lb rucksack the weight of the weapon that person carries. A gunner for an M-60 machine-gun is responsible for carrying the gun itself (23 lbs) and a belt of ammo (8 lbs.) That will be 31 lbs of added weight to the already 100+ lbs of rucksack. Now, she would be responsible for carrying 131 lbs on her back and shoulders for the duration of her movement while keeping pace with the rest of here Platoon, Squad, Team, whatever. If she is a member of an Airborne unit, add 40 lbs of weight for the parachute, standing in the door to jump from 10 minutes to 30 minutes, if the pilot needs to make another pass on the drop zone. So that is 171 lbs of weight which practically doubles the typical female body weight. Btw, there are much heavier weapon systems carried by the typical combat arms soldier. Lets not even get into Mortar Systems :)
2. Sanitary needs. Argue it all you want, the female soldier has sanitary needs beyond a male. Cleanliness of ones-self is critical in combat enviornments for the longevity of the soldier. It is not uncommon in the field or combat to miss your combat trans (resupply convoys.) A female not being able to keep her body even somewhat clean can suffer infection or medical condition that cannot be dealt with by the attached combat medic. This would require a medivac procedure to take this soldier to the rear and that ability is not always available at the time its needed. So you have now amputated yourself as a unit because it will take 3 other soldiers to make up for the one soldier that is now combat ineffective...
1 to take her crew served weapon...
1 to carry her personal equipment...
1 to carry her by litter of Firemans Carry to the rally point.
3. Special Operations. The benefit of Combat Arms is the ability to join Special Operations Teams. The very nature of a D.O.D. (Department of Defence) team is to be placed in a hostile enviornment with little to zero support from the rear in your mission. Be in the field on an operation for 6 months taking from the enviornment you are placed in. These teams operate in a squad sized element (13 man team) to individual or 2 man teams. You could not possibly have females as members of Combat Arms and not give them the opportunity to strive for that Ranger or Special Forces tab!
4. Sexual Assault. Alright, Lets talk about it. But not from the friendly soldier. Lets talk about the enemy. Lets say that the female Ranger is captured by the enemy. The VERY real scenario of rape as a means of extracting information from the soldier is not a made-up means of argumnent. If one Army is fighting another, one could expect a certain amount of compliance to the Geneva Convention. However, the current battles we fight and will continue to fight in the future are not against a modern Army. They are against bands of fighters (Al Quada, Taliban) who do not follow the doctrine of the Geneva Convention. The female soldier in general, let alone a combat arms soldier, are at risk in this way. Now, put the female in direct harms way as a member of a Combat Arms unit and you have amplified, astronomically, the direct threat to the female combatant. Imagine her on guard duty, snatched, interrogated, raped, and THEN killed and placed in an area for that unit to find the body. Now demoralization will set in to that element (unit.)
There are more issues than this that I could write about. However, it is incredibly close to work time and I have to get ready. I will end it by saying these closing things....
I have been to several Professional Development Schools in the military and the examples that I have written here are part of the standard military doctine taught to senior NCOs (Non-Commissioned Officers) at those schools.
The intelligence of the female to plan and execute the battle utilizing Combat Arms has never nor will ever be the argument. It is the physical limitation of the soldier that is the debate.
I have certainly met and served with ladies that would be termed the "exception to the rule." However, when changing doctrine for Combat Arms, the change will be made for the masses, not the individual. Until the day that the female is recruited on the reccomendaion of her Football Coach, no ladies in Combat Arms will continue to be standard doctrine in the US Military.
Just the opinion of one who served. Be gentle :)
ReDhAwK
82nd Airborne
Berline Brigade
US Army Infantry School Instructor
3rd Ranger Battalion
2ID
3ID (Mechanized)
-
in the US Military.
The only thing that made sense.
Mac
-
It must be rehash week.
-
Hi Lord,
Ever serve in combat with a woman?
I might point out the thread is about women working in a combat zone, not specifically as a front line ground combatant.
American women have served in US combat zones during and since the American War of Independence.
On the issue of feminine cleanliness, heaven forbid that we women use whatever is avaliable. We managed to survive before the introduction of commercial tampons during the late 1920's to early 1930's.
Bottom line... when a country does not have enough male combatants to defend itself, female combatants go to war; case in point: Russia during WWII and Israel present day.
TIGERESS
Edit: I am not sure whether this thread is intentional trolling and flame baiting or not. That is why I asked Blue his age.
Originally posted by Lord ReDhAwK
Oh man. I really shouldnt even write this but here goes...
Retired Army here. Combat Arms. Infantry.
Combat Arms involve more than just the Infantry. You have Tankers and Artillery that also fall within this realm. However, all 3 of the arms of ground combatants are in the dirt, more or less, the same in-theatre.
Women should not be allowed in Combat Arms IMHO for the following reasons (and none of them are because of being raped by their foxhole buddy...)
1. Physical ability. The female endurance in a field enviornment is hindered by muscle mass that are not a concern for a typical male. It is quite common in a field training excercise or combat in theatre to carry a ruck sack with a full combat load. A combat load can be easily in excess of 100lbs depending on ones particular job. Add to that 100lb rucksack the weight of the weapon that person carries. A gunner for an M-60 machine-gun is responsible for carrying the gun itself (23 lbs) and a belt of ammo (8 lbs.) That will be 31 lbs of added weight to the already 100+ lbs of rucksack. Now, she would be responsible for carrying 131 lbs on her back and shoulders for the duration of her movement while keeping pace with the rest of here Platoon, Squad, Team, whatever. If she is a member of an Airborne unit, add 40 lbs of weight for the parachute, standing in the door to jump from 10 minutes to 30 minutes, if the pilot needs to make another pass on the drop zone. So that is 171 lbs of weight which practically doubles the typical female body weight. Btw, there are much heavier weapon systems carried by the typical combat arms soldier. Lets not even get into Mortar Systems :)
2. Sanitary needs. Argue it all you want, the female soldier has sanitary needs beyond a male. Cleanliness of ones-self is critical in combat enviornments for the longevity of the soldier. It is not uncommon in the field or combat to miss your combat trans (resupply convoys.) A female not being able to keep her body even somewhat clean can suffer infection or medical condition that cannot be dealt with by the attached combat medic. This would require a medivac procedure to take this soldier to the rear and that ability is not always available at the time its needed. So you have now amputated yourself as a unit because it will take 3 other soldiers to make up for the one soldier that is now combat ineffective...
1 to take her crew served weapon...
1 to carry her personal equipment...
1 to carry her by litter of Firemans Carry to the rally point.
3. Special Operations. The benefit of Combat Arms is the ability to join Special Operations Teams. The very nature of a D.O.D. (Department of Defence) team is to be placed in a hostile enviornment with little to zero support from the rear in your mission. Be in the field on an operation for 6 months taking from the enviornment you are placed in. These teams operate in a squad sized element (13 man team) to individual or 2 man teams. You could not possibly have females as members of Combat Arms and not give them the opportunity to strive for that Ranger or Special Forces tab!
4. Sexual Assault. Alright, Lets talk about it. But not from the friendly soldier. Lets talk about the enemy. Lets say that the female Ranger is captured by the enemy. The VERY real scenario of rape as a means of extracting information from the soldier is not a made-up means of argumnent. If one Army is fighting another, one could expect a certain amount of compliance to the Geneva Convention. However, the current battles we fight and will continue to fight in the future are not against a modern Army. They are against bands of fighters (Al Quada, Taliban) who do not follow the doctrine of the Geneva Convention. The female soldier in general, let alone a combat arms soldier, are at risk in this way. Now, put the female in direct harms way as a member of a Combat Arms unit and you have amplified, astronomically, the direct threat to the female combatant. Imagine her on guard duty, snatched, interrogated, raped, and THEN killed and placed in an area for that unit to find the body. Now demoralization will set in to that element (unit.)
There are more issues than this that I could write about. However, it is incredibly close to work time and I have to get ready. I will end it by saying these closing things....
I have been to several Professional Development Schools in the military and the examples that I have written here are part of the standard military doctine taught to senior NCOs (Non-Commissioned Officers) at those schools.
The intelligence of the female to plan and execute the battle utilizing Combat Arms has never nor will ever be the argument. It is the physical limitation of the soldier that is the debate.
I have certainly met and served with ladies that would be termed the "exception to the rule." However, when changing doctrine for Combat Arms, the change will be made for the masses, not the individual. Until the day that the female is recruited on the reccomendaion of her Football Coach, no ladies in Combat Arms will continue to be standard doctrine in the US Military.
Just the opinion of one who served. Be gentle :)
ReDhAwK
82nd Airborne
Berline Brigade
US Army Infantry School Instructor
3rd Ranger Battalion
2ID
3ID (Mechanized)
-
Neg Tigress. Trained with several but no women were part of any unit I was ever a member of, being Combat Arms.
ReDhAwK
-
I think it's a bad idea. And it's not that women are lesser than men. But the interaction between men & women ALWAYS takes away from the mission. ALWAYS. I'll post longer on that today, I'm sure.
In fact, I'd go even further to say that our military was better off back 40 years ago when women were discharged upon becoming pregnant.
-
As Laser said, as long as physical and mental standards aren't being lowered or exceptions being made, what's the problem?
Lord RedHawk makes the statement that womens' physical endurance is a problem. I don't understand that (and I've never military or physical education training so I may be missing something). Surely there is a level of physical endurance required by all reqruits - male and female. If you don't make the grade, you wash out. Where does gender come in to it?
Also, sexual assault as a means of torture when captured may happen, but is that any more or less likely to make your unit lose moral than - say - seeing your captured buddy decapitated on Al Jazeera. I reckon there's a level of barabrism after which the details don't matter.
As I said, I've no relevent experience in this so I may be missing something.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
I think it's a bad idea. And it's not that women are lesser than men. But the interaction between men & women ALWAYS takes away from the mission. ALWAYS. I'll post longer on that today, I'm sure.
In fact, I'd go even further to say that our military was better off back 40 years ago when women were discharged upon becoming pregnant.
I agree, pregnant women should excuse themselves from a combat zone.
Saying women should not serve in the military because of interaction with men isn't something I find I can agree with.
If some men can't keep their sexual instincts under control, who's fault is that?
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I agree, pregnant women should excuse themselves from a combat zone.
Saying women should not serve in the military because of interaction with men isn't something I find I can agree with.
If some men can't keep their sexual instincts under control, who's fault is that?
TIGERESS
It's not just sexual interaction. It's the overall relationships between men & women that is the problem.
And I think they should be able to serve, but definitely not in combat. Yes, that would mean removing them from those same functions in garrison (which in reality is just preparation for the next deployment).
There are plenty of women who do make the grade, and plenty of wimpy whiney men who don't. But on the whole, I'm all for going back to an all male military.
*edit* it's not just the men who can't keep their fly zipped. The women have a fly on their pants now too, and they don't keep theirs zipped either.
*edit again* as for the pregnancy, I'd remove them from the military entirely. Discharge them; not remove them from the combat zone. Pregnancy already puts them in a medically non-deployable status. I'd discharge them from the military entirely.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
It's not just sexual interaction. It's the overall relationships between men & women that is the problem.
And I think they should be able to serve, but definitely not in combat. Yes, that would mean removing them from those same functions in garrison (which in reality is just preparation for the next deployment).
There are plenty of women who do make the grade, and plenty of wimpy whiney men who don't. But on the whole, I'm all for going back to an all male military.
*edit* it's not just the men who can't keep their fly zipped. The women have a fly on their pants now too, and they don't keep theirs zipped either.
*edit again* as for the pregnancy, I'd remove them from the military entirely. Discharge them; not remove them from the combat zone. Pregnancy already puts them in a medically non-deployable status. I'd discharge them from the military entirely.
*edit* it's not just the men who can't keep their fly zipped. The women have a fly on their pants now too, and they don't keep theirs zipped either.
That is certainly true; I am thinking about who forcibly rapes whom... not consensual sex or casual relationships.
If I were a US military academy career officer and a pilot, I'll be damned if I would stand for being discharged because of a pregnancy. I would take all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
TIGERESS
Edit: Do you think schools should be gender segregated?
-
My opinion.
No female soldier should be allowed in a forward combat area.
there are PLENTY of vital support roles that could be filled by women that would better utilise the natural skills of women. And free up the men to do the fighting.
Yes that of caregiver (Doctor/Nurse)
Their natural superiour organizational skills in supply and logistics
(All one has to do is take a good look as just about any mother to see this in action)
Too many things can go wrong for women in an intence and hostile setting.
Sexual assault by make soldiers.
Rape if captured by the enemy.
Not to mention even if the first two do not occur.
Nature tends to take its course between men and women whenever they are lumped together for an extended period of time.
-
Originally posted by 68Wooley
As Laser said, as long as physical and mental standards aren't being lowered or exceptions being made, what's the problem?
Lord RedHawk makes the statement that womens' physical endurance is a problem. I don't understand that (and I've never military or physical education training so I may be missing something). Surely there is a level of physical endurance required by all reqruits - male and female. If you don't make the grade, you wash out. Where does gender come in to it?
Also, sexual assault as a means of torture when captured may happen, but is that any more or less likely to make your unit lose moral than - say - seeing your captured buddy decapitated on Al Jazeera. I reckon there's a level of barabrism after which the details don't matter.
As I said, I've no relevent experience in this so I may be missing something.
The physical standards are different for men and women. Remembering back 10yrs ago when I was in, a male in my age group had 17 min to finish a 2 mile run, while a female in the same age group had something like 19 min. Males in my age group had to do 48 pushups to pass the PT test, females had to do 28. Males in my age group had to do 42 situps, females in my age group had to do 38.
Those numbers may not be 100% exact, but I do remember in each category the performance standard for females was less than that of males. Now, I dont know if in the last 10 years this has changed, so if it has, please disregard.
To add to redhawks statements ... What happens when a male soldier weighing 180lbs gets wounded and cannot walk and his only means of getting to aid/safety is a female soldier weighing 120? I sincerly wouldnt want to be the wounded soldier in that situation.
For the OP:
In wars past there was a difinitive line, this was a combat zone, this was not. I think it will be a very long time before we see a war like that again. When a terrorist/enemy combatant/whatever can just as easily attack a barracks as a tank, there are no more "rear areas". I'm all for allowing women in all areas of the military, provided there is one standard for both men and women, those who cannot pass (both men & women) should be discharged.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Edit: Do you think schools should be gender segregated?
I would be thrilled if schools were gender segregated (for most of the classroom work anyhow)
-
Originally posted by texasmom
I would be thrilled if schools were gender segregated (for most of the classroom work anyhow)
I recall you telling me you have young sons; do you also have daughters?
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I recall you telling me you have young sons; do you also have daughters?
TIGERESS
Nope, just boys (thank God)
-
My thought is that if a female soldier could life my, say, 200 lb bulk over her shoulder and haul me off the battle field or pull me out of a burning APC I would have no problem with that. Otherwise, she is endangering my life for a political statement. Combat is still about kill or be killed, and physicality still plays a notable role in that in many MOS'
As laser said, if she can perform the task without adjustment or accommodation for he physical abilities then fine. I was never a recruitment poster bulk of muscle as a soldier, but I could perform my combat arms task to standards.
Charon
-
I have stated before... men are physically superior to us.
I, for one, do not want to be a foot soldier unless my country ran out of enough able-bodied men to keep the enemy from the cities, streets, and doors of my fellow citizens.
Bottom line... when a country does not have enough male combatants to defend itself, female combatants go to war.
Case in point: Russia during WWII and Israel present day.
In cases like these, all the "should we allow" business goes right out the window.
That is a serious reason I think women have a place in the military, even if we are not active ground combatants.
We are the reserve ground combatants and good flying combatants unless you want us to just cozy up with your conquerors after they win.
BTW, I would probably be good at driving a tank or being a sniper or flying something like a chopper or warthog or a bomber.
Personally, I think I would get a lot of satisfaction out of driving a warthog... sending those ground SOBs to Hell.
A-10 vs. the bad guys--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5ng8icQ7I4
TIGERESS
-
No combat zone duty for the ladies says I.
-
Originally posted by Hap
No combat zone duty for the ladies says I.
Female combatants aren't ladies dear :) they are professional killers. :noid
TIGERESS
-
Has it degraded our fighting abilities at all having women serve in combat? We have women doing foot patrols in Iraq, coming home wounded and sadly in body bags.
Honestly, debating whether or not they are qualified kind of is a slap in the face to the women that are fighting and dying on the front lines along with the men.
ack-ack
-
A woman with a gun in her hands scares me even more then a man with one. Never underestimate the ruthlessness of a woman.
-
If (and this is a huge if) they can meet the same physical standards of the male soldiers, then they qualify for combat zone duty.
That said, I do buy into the belief that male soldiers would take risks for a woman they would not for a man. I know the code, but women would put men at risk.
-
I think the Israelis did a study on the psychological effects women soldiers had on their male comrades in a combat situations. They have one of the best-trained and most disciplined armies in the world, and yet they found that the male soldiers were naturally more likely to break ranks when a woman was hit than if it were another man.
Responses included increases in aggressiveness toward the enemy (some of the men in the study were driven to the point of rage) and an increased likelihood to abandon their position or objectives to aid a wounded female soldier. The men were also more protective of their female comrades.
Additionally, and at least in Western armies, men have been found to generally be more reluctant to open fire on a woman on the opposing side than they are another man. This is part of the problem that female suicide bombers present.
-
The fact is this. Women have been fighting for equal treatment in this country for along time. And if America actually lived up to what it said, then it wouldn't have been an issue. If women want the same rights as men then they have the right to be drafted and die just as everyone else. They should fill out selective service cards. It is the burden or privelage of every male to be ready to be called if needed. Women should do so too. No bull**** if they want equal rights, they get them, including the ones they don't want.
As a black man i could tell you about the story of my dad being drafted and then not being allowed the simple right to sit where he wanted too in piece. Or the numerous folks who died for this country only to have there children beatened and whipped and dogs sicked on them when trying to vote. So too for women, you want your rights go ahead, but it goes both ways. The people i mentioned fought for there country and were treated like ***** in return. Take they're cue and step out there. Question is, do you like the special treatment? There are some places to be treated like a lady, and some not, and that is not on a battlefield. So if women are willing to except that, good on ya then.
Can women be efective soldiers? ...Yes. Will it change the battlefield?...... Possibly. But it would only change because of the stupid fools that would try to rape somebody or be more willing to help a woman then help a male counterpart. Should women suffer for this mentality? .... No. If they are willing to take that on, fine then. But the fact is it would possibly change things, and the purpose of a war is to win at all cost and there is no room for complications. Fact is there are differences between men and women, and i very much believe not just physical. Our brains are hardwired in different ways. Should the U.S. government allow women to fight in a war and be fighting that natural instinct as well as the enemy at the same time? It would probably be counterproductive. It might cause us to lose, and if we lose a war we all die.
-
Tigress, I am 35 and no, I'm not trolling.
I was fishing for a response(particularly from you ladies of the board), there is no doubt about that, but I am not trying to deliberately upset people or belittle women in any way.
As for me refering to women as 'weaker'....to me they are, a lot of men are too.
I am 199cm tall and weigh 120 kg, I regularly bench 155kg and curl 50kg one handed. Not bragging, just stating a fact.
Any woman who is physically stronger is not very feminine at all.
I am also aware that there are and always have been women on the battlefields of the world who could kill me in two seconds flat....probably even quicker, I am too big to hide....when everyone hit the dirt, it would be my arse sticking up and getting shot.
Originally posted by moot
You believe in something you know is flawed? :lol
There's nothing more wrong about women in combat than there is about men or children. It's all barbaric.
The man has a point there, no denying it.
Originally posted by Tigeress
Saying women should not serve in the military because of interaction with men isn't something I find I can agree with.
If some men can't keep their sexual instincts under control, who's fault is that?
TIGERESS
Question is, is it right to place a woman in the situation where those men have that opportunity, regardless of whose fault it is.
I don't think sexual harassment/rape is right by any means.
Just because it isn't right doesn't mean it wont happen.
Originally posted by Saxman
I'm of two minds:
First, I believe women have the same potential ability as men to serve in combat. Women combatants is a historical fact, and BEYOND the Russians in WWII (for example the Norse/Germanic shieldmaidens, and many of the Celtic tribes men and women shared in combat equally). Furthermore, if a woman wants to serve her country she has every right to do so.
But...
I HATE the thought of a woman's life in danger. There's just something I find fundamentally wrong about putting a woman in a position where she's deliberately targeted by lethal force, and exposing her to the horror of combat. Partly, it's because I have a desire to protect, shelter, and take care of her: better *I* have to face that danger than she.
I also tend to put women on something of a pedestal, that a woman is more innately innocent and good (I'm a writer, and it's VERY rare that I create a woman character who is undeniably evil). I'm perfectly aware of the flaw in that reasoning, but that's my belief.
Brilliant!....couldn't have said it better myself.
I should clarify a point here, or more truthfully, correct a mistake I made earlier.
I am meaning women in front line, tip of the spear, combat roles.
Nurses, Intel operatives, drivers, transport pilots, administrative positions etc are a given, women can and do do a very good job in those roles, quite often better than a similarly trained man will do.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
BTW, I would probably be good at driving a tank or being a sniper or flying something like a chopper or warthog or a bomber.
Personally, I think I would get a lot of satisfaction out of driving a warthog... sending those ground SOBs to Hell.
A-10 vs. the bad guys--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5ng8icQ7I4
TIGERESS
You probably would be. The fact is women can pull the trigger and operate the systems in any combat aircraft today, as well or better than men. There is also not the close living and combat aspect that involves fighting on the ground.
The russian snipers you all have mentioned is a more viable situation for women. As i understand it, snipers work alone and a alot of times detached from the main group and aren't usually involved on the ground when combat is occuring. They are usually interdicting or overseeing a battlefied providing area denying fire for troops, or reconaisance. Women could do that more i'd say because there is less interaction.
However would all that stuff thats been mentioned begin to effect combat and our outcome in a war. It probably would. In a perfectly equal world women should be allowed to fight. It's not however.
Like Drediock said nature seems to take it's course between men and women.
-
I think that in certain areas, man should have their thing, and women should have theirs. Woman get tougher, men get softer. Pretty soon evolution will kick in and one day I'll look down to find me willys gone!
-
Personally I believe that all areas of combat should be open to women. Give them the details, the facts of what they will be doing, what they will face if captured, then let them make their own choice.
-
"If I were a US military academy career officer and a pilot, I'll be damned if I would stand for being discharged because of a pregnancy. I would take all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary."
If you can't avoid getting knocked up when you have higher obligations, you should be summarily discharged.
Title 9 on the battlefield?
Really Tough Door? (http://www.evilchili.com/mediaview/14987/Female_Soldier_Attempts_To_Kick_A_Door_Down)
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Never underestimate the ruthlessness of a woman.
Amen to that
Learned a long time ago never to trust anything that can bleed for 7 days and not die
-
Originally posted by Thruster
"If I were a US military academy career officer and a pilot, I'll be damned if I would stand for being discharged because of a pregnancy. I would take all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary."
If you can't avoid getting knocked up when you have higher obligations, you should be summarily discharged.
Title 9 on the battlefield?
Really Tough Door? (http://www.evilchili.com/mediaview/14987/Female_Soldier_Attempts_To_Kick_A_Door_Down)
Sooo... some cowardly bastard ambushes a female Military Officer in a dark parking by knocking her out from behind, rapes her and she gets fired by the armed forces for getting pregnant... I see.
Or she is put into a position feeling forced by the government to seek an abortion to protect her career... mmmm
So would you recommend women who are destined to be career officers to have their tubes tied by the government or voluntarily do so to protect their career? Only on condition that the government perform a vasectomy on all males entering the military... and that would never fly nor should it.
In any event, I am not too worried about military discharge of females due to pregnancy... it's not on the books and I doubt it ever will be in the future, thus that particular subject is moot and irrelevant.
TIGERESS
-
"Sooo... some cowardly bastard ambushes a female officer in a dark parking lot, knocks her in the head, rapes her and she gets discharged for getting pregnant... I see. "
No I can tell you don't see.
Assuming a military officer would fall victim to an assault speaks to that officer's decision making capacities. And I know the canned response.......
Victims of violent crime are almost universally guilty of placing themselves at risk. That is not to say they did something wrong, just did not do something smart.
I also resent the N.O.W. strategy of pulling the rape card whenever their procreative realities and responsibilities are discussed. For some years it's been the primary moral argument used to rationalize abortion also. I don't buy it.
Women have supposedly fought long and hard for "equality", they want the "benefits" commonly granted the male constituency but still resist the idea that certain obligations and responsibilities come with those "rights".
"So would you recommend women who are destined to be career officers to have their tubes tied by the government or voluntarily do so to protect their career?"
I suggest that if you are susceptible to being impregnated and consequently are responsible for bringing a new life into the world with all the commitments that obligation carries, I suggest one should be extremely mindful of their actions. And behave accordingly. Tubal ligation is one of many options, maybe a bit on the extreme end. There's also I.U.D.s, Depo Provera and it's alternatives, maybe even a little personal restraint.
To answer what I believe is your real question, no, I don't think mothers should be soldiers. Comparing our military to that of armies under siege is at the least insulting to those who serve, irrespective of gender.
Using alarmist exceptions to the rule is a common tactic we see in many facets of modern society. I sincerely doubt that all things being equal, your theoretical victim would have to deal with a policy that would logically be applied to those who conceived in a more conventional method.
"In any event, I am not too worried about military discharge of females due to pregnancy... it's not on the books and I doubt it ever will be in the future, thus this entire subject is moot and irrelevant."
And I assure you that if frontline effectiveness is sufficiently compromised and the practice of rotating and accommodating too many preggers marines becomes unworkable, yes they will start to discharge personnel who are unable to competently fulfill their duties be they physical or intellectual in nature
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Tigress, I am 35 and no, I'm not trolling.
I was fishing for a response(particularly from you ladies of the board), there is no doubt about that, but I am not trying to deliberately upset people or belittle women in any way.
I believe you Bluedog, thanks. :)
There have been those who have started trolling threads here and have met the Wrath of Skuzzy for it... and get banned for it if they keep it up, which happened just recently.
I was actually more concerned you might have been a youngster exploring adult issues between men and women, thus I wanted to react accordingly.
TIGERESS
-
It's a bad idea.. I don't even like working with em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Thruster
"Sooo... some cowardly bastard ambushes a female officer in a dark parking lot, knocks her in the head, rapes her and she gets discharged for getting pregnant... I see. "
No I can tell you don't see.
Assuming a military officer would fall victim to an assault speaks to that officer's decision making capacities. And I know the canned response.......
Victims of violent crime are almost universally guilty of placing themselves at risk. That is not to say they did something wrong, just did not do something smart.
I also resent the N.O.W. strategy of pulling the rape card whenever their procreative realities and responsibilities are discussed. For some years it's been the primary moral argument used to rationalize abortion also. I don't buy it.
Women have supposedly fought long and hard for "equality", they want the "benefits" commonly granted the male constituency but still resist the idea that certain obligations and responsibilities come with those "rights".
"So would you recommend women who are destined to be career officers to have their tubes tied by the government or voluntarily do so to protect their career?"
I suggest that if you are susceptible to being impregnated and consequently are responsible for bringing a new life into the world with all the commitments that obligation carries, I suggest one should be extremely mindful of their actions. And behave accordingly. Tubal ligation is one of many options, maybe a bit on the extreme end. There's also I.U.D.s, Depo Provera and it's alternatives, maybe even a little personal restraint.
To answer what I believe is your real question, no, I don't think mothers should be soldiers. Comparing our military to that of armies under siege is at the least insulting to those who serve, irrespective of gender.
Using alarmist exceptions to the rule is a common tactic we see in many facets of modern society. I sincerely doubt that all things being equal, your theoretical victim would have to deal with a policy that would logically be applied to those who conceived in a more conventional method.
"In any event, I am not too worried about military discharge of females due to pregnancy... it's not on the books and I doubt it ever will be in the future, thus this entire subject is moot and irrelevant."
And I assure you that if frontline effectiveness is sufficiently compromised and the practice of rotating and accommodating too many preggers marines becomes unworkable, yes they will start to discharge personnel who are unable to competently fulfill their duties be they physical or intellectual in nature
Hi Thruster,
Nice getting a chance to get to know you better, and you, me.
In case you didn't know, I am not an equal rights male-bashing feminist; my prior postings will reflect that. Additionaly, I like men and respect men for who and what they are.
I certainly agree with you that active women combatants in a war zone need to be responsible for themselves with regards to prevention of pregnancy.
I also want to compliment you on your articulate writing and obvious attention and desire to explain your views clearly.
I have a lot of respect for that. :)
As far as the concept of "equals" is concerned... males and females are "different" yet both are equally and fully human; Females are no less human than males.
That is to say, the human race is not "Mankind" it is "Humankind." The fact that it was ever referred to as mankind points to the historical de-humanization of women in the past.
Intentionally disrespecting and demeaning humans on the basis of gender, or ethnicity, or wealth, or any other issue which differentiate humans socially, thus relegating them to a status of less than human, is something I do not abide and never will.
I don't believe you are consciously doing that, but some men and women with self-inferiority issues do do that.
I think you would agree what a miserable example of a man it is who is compelled to put down women for the purpose of make himself feel like a man.
There are plenty of men posting on this thread who give credit where credit is due to women and do so without diminishing themselves as real men.
Again, I am not implying you are purposefully putting women down.
TIGERESS
-
Really, when talking about men/women in the military... the most relevant discussion in regards to 'equality' would be 'equal capabilities in accomplishing the mission.'
Actually, dim-wit or weakling men should be removed also (they aren't)... not just women. If a woman takes away from the mission ~ move her out of the way & put someone in who can handle it.
If she can handle it, fine. If not, move aside. No 'sensitivity training,' 'consideration of others' classes, all that crap, either.
*edit* if this were Walgreen's perfect world, slackers & know-nothings & don't-make-the-grades would all be removed immediately. It never has & never will happen though.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It's a bad idea.. I don't even like working with em.
lazs
I doubt they enjoy working with you either Lazs dear! :rofl
coo
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Really, when talking about men/women in the military... the most relevant discussion in regards to 'equality' would be 'equal capabilities in accomplishing the mission.'
Actually, dim-wit or weakling men should be removed also (they aren't)... not just women. If a woman takes away from the mission ~ move her out of the way & put someone in who can handle it.
If she can handle it, fine. If not, move aside. No 'sensitivity training,' 'consideration of others' classes, all that crap, either.
*edit* if this were Walgreen's perfect world, slackers & know-nothings & don't-make-the-grades would all be removed immediately. It never has & never will happen though.
Very much in agreement with ya! ;) There are a ton of different jobs in the military which do not require the ability of bench pressing 200 pounds.
Skillfully deploying in a combat aircraft is one example, another is being a sniper or a target designator with a laser beam, or flying a chopper amongst the trees dropping troops or attacking tanks or ground troops or commanding or being a crew member of a B-2 bomber or driving an aircraft carrier or doing maintinence on or operating weapons systems.
Any female who cant cut it needs to get the hell out of the way; same for whimpering scaredy-cats who are males who we all know of or have all met at some point.
TIGERESS
-
no tigress.. they don't. I don't do things the way they want.. I get things done and I make decisions fast. The funniest thing one ever told me was meant to hurt my feelings or prove a point I guess... she was trying to tell me I was wrong and how but I was simply telling her why I did what I did and how it was perfectly legal (it had worked out well in any case) she said... "you have an answer for everything don't you?"
I said.. "no.. not everything but certainly for the crap you are spouting"
lazs
-
I have noticed an apparent relunctance by most, but not all, on the thread to take this previous post into account...
TIGERESS
Originally posted by Tigeress
I have stated before... men are physically superior to us.
I, for one, do not want to be a foot soldier unless my country ran out of enough able-bodied men to keep the enemy from the cities, streets, and doors of my fellow citizens.
Bottom line... when a country does not have enough male combatants to defend itself, female combatants go to war.
Case in point: Russia during WWII and Israel present day.
In cases like these, all the "should we allow" business goes right out the window.
That is a serious reason I think women have a place in the military, even if we are not active ground combatants.
We are the reserve ground combatants and good flying combatants unless you want us to just cozy up with your conquerors after they win.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no tigress.. they don't. I don't do things the way they want.. I get things done and I make decisions fast. The funniest thing one ever told me was meant to hurt my feelings or prove a point I guess... she was trying to tell me I was wrong and how but I was simply telling her why I did what I did and how it was perfectly legal (it had worked out well in any case) she said... "you have an answer for everything don't you?"
I said.. "no.. not everything but certainly for the crap you are spouting"
lazs
Good for you; she obviously needed to be put in her place.
I read you as a no nonsense get it done kind of guy and I respect and admire that.
I also know you much better now that we have had a chance to converse over time.
From you own posts, I know that you like and respect women in general and can quote you on that from your previous posts... and some women deserve none of, or less of, your respect than others... same for me with regards to some men.
In my mind, there is a hell of a lot more involved in a guy being a "real man" than just his gonads and the aggressiveness and muscle bulk they bestow.
In my mind, there is a hell of a lot more involved in a gal being a "real woman" than just her attractiveness to men and her ability to produce children.
Want to witness real courage and strength of character under duress? ...imagine being a woman responsibly raising four children alone and holding down one or more jobs to make ends meet.
For some women, going to war would be no less demanding of her courage and strength of character, all other things being equal, from my presepctive.
TIGERESS
-
Tigress,
You made a point to define equality that I believe is accurate and central to these types of issues then you write;
"That is to say, the human race is not "Mankind" it is "Humankind." The fact that it was ever referred to as mankind points to the historical de-humanization of women in the past."
Which I can't let slide.
I, My father, his father, and I'm gonna guess the whole line were raised to cherish, protect, and honor women. 7,500 years of western culture has shown no de-humanization of women. Most ancient to recent art has employed the female as a primary subject. Mythical and literary characterizations of women have been generally favorable, and in many cases heroic. In no credible reference that I am aware of has the case been made that women are less than human. Both genders tend to have divergent but complimentary abilities and virtues. It's the arbitrary commingling of those attributes that I find counterproductive. True, many aboriginal cultures diminish female's in the eye of the law but that is more an evolutionary response to pragmatic pressures. They still love their Mommas, Wives and Daughters.
And please don't invoke the actions of crazy foreigners to rebuke my assertion. We're painting with a wide brush here.
You then go on to write:
"Intentionally disrespecting and demeaning humans on the basis of gender, or ethnicity, or wealth, or any other issue which differentiate humans socially, thus relegating them to a status of less than human, is something I do not abide and never will.
"I don't believe you are consciously doing that, but some men and women with self-inferiority issues do do that."
Are you suggesting that I am demeaning anybody subconsciously?
Although I have no frame of reference as I have never seen combat, I think it would be demeaning to a frontline soldier were he told someone half his size with half his strength was as capable as he in the most physically challenging occupations man has yet to conceive.
-
Originally posted by Thruster
Tigress,
You made a point to define equality that I believe is accurate and central to these types of issues then you write;
"That is to say, the human race is not "Mankind" it is "Humankind." The fact that it was ever referred to as mankind points to the historical de-humanization of women in the past."
Which I can't let slide.
I, My father, his father, and I'm gonna guess the whole line were raised to cherish, protect, and honor women. 7,500 years of western culture has shown no de-humanization of women. Most ancient to recent art has employed the female as a primary subject. Mythical and literary characterizations of women have been generally favorable, and in many cases heroic. In no credible reference that I am aware of has the case been made that women are less than human. Both genders tend to have divergent but complimentary abilities and virtues. It's the arbitrary commingling of those attributes that I find counterproductive. True, many aboriginal cultures diminish female's in the eye of the law but that is more an evolutionary response to pragmatic pressures. They still love their Mommas, Wives and Daughters.
And please don't invoke the actions of crazy foreigners to rebuke my assertion. We're painting with a wide brush here.
You then go on to write:
"Intentionally disrespecting and demeaning humans on the basis of gender, or ethnicity, or wealth, or any other issue which differentiate humans socially, thus relegating them to a status of less than human, is something I do not abide and never will.
"I don't believe you are consciously doing that, but some men and women with self-inferiority issues do do that."
Are you suggesting that I am demeaning anybody subconsciously?
Although I have no frame of reference as I have never seen combat, I think it would be demeaning to a frontline soldier were he told someone half his size with half his strength was as capable as he in the most physically challenging occupations man has yet to conceive.
Hi Thruster,
Please don't infer that I am saying you are subconsciously demeaning anyone... written english is what it is... thus face to face discussions are a lot less onerous as to meanings.
The fact that women have been successful combatants is a matter of record and speaks for itself; physical strength differentiation notwithstanding.
The fact that the 19th amendment of the US Constitution was written by men then voted on by men then ratified by men in 1920 to allow women to vote and hold public office speaks for itself, dear.
I am not bitter about it but this country enslaved races of peoples in its past and cast them as less than human and forced women into the unenviable position of enduring many of the same disadvantages at that of a minor child.
When my Mother married my Father... in this country she was required to utter vows of "love honor and obey". Those vows were commonplace even into the 1970s but are mostly history now. I, myself, was not forced into vowing to obey my husband.
Additionally she, as a married woman, was required by Texas law to give over control of her property rights (which includes her money and wages) to her husband. Texas law changed in 1967 to abolish that.
see--> http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/WW/jsw2.html
Thus, in the State of Texas in 1967, a married woman was recognized by law as deserving respect and status as an adult human being with regards to her property rights, not a child or sub-human.
TIGERESS
-
My take on women in combat and this is my opinion as a combat vet (Desert Storm) is this. Women flying fighters, helo's, or operating in a technical environment like Patriot Missle Battery controlers and such is fine. A mans ability in those arenas is no better than a womans when you need quick reflexes and an agile mind looking at the big picture.
Certain combat arms however I'm not so sure about. I was in Field Artillery. It's hard enough serving a howtizer with a bunch of guys that are able to hump rounds for hours on end. When a TOT fire mission comes in and you have to rapid fire a dozen rounds just as fast as you can and then pack everything up and move out just as fast as you can, I don't know of too many women that can sustain that degree of physical endurance to get it done in time.
I'm NOT saying there aren't women that can do it, but for most women in general they can't.
What disturbs me is when they have two seperate sets of physical requirements between men and women for the same job. If I have a job in the military that requires me to perform at a certain physical level to accomplish my mission then that standard should be the SAME for anyone else wanting to do that job. Gender should not be a consideration to physical standards that are required to complete a given mission. Sadly that is not the case many times.
Personally I don't think a woman belongs in the infantry, armor, or artillery unless they are part of the command staff. I've yet to see any woman that can pack a 150lb rucksack all day long and keep up with the men.
That's my take on things.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
I think the Israelis did a study on the psychological effects women soldiers had on their male comrades in a combat situations. They have one of the best-trained and most disciplined armies in the world, and yet they found that the male soldiers were naturally more likely to break ranks when a woman was hit than if it were another man.
Responses included increases in aggressiveness toward the enemy (some of the men in the study were driven to the point of rage) and an increased likelihood to abandon their position or objectives to aid a wounded female soldier. The men were also more protective of their female comrades.
Additionally, and at least in Western armies, men have been found to generally be more reluctant to open fire on a woman on the opposing side than they are another man. This is part of the problem that female suicide bombers present.
The Israelis, I have learned from men here, train their men to overcome these socially instilled tendencies on the battlefield.
It's part of their normal training.
A female combatant's life is not worth any more or any less than a male combatant's life.
Should you choose to dispute this assertion, let me know and I will dig out that training reference for you.
A soldier is a soldier... no two are the same.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
My take on women in combat and this is my opinion as a combat vet (Desert Storm) is this. Women flying fighters, helo's, or operating in a technical environment like Patriot Missle Battery controlers and such is fine. A mans ability in those arenas is no better than a womans when you need quick reflexes and an agile mind looking at the big picture.
Certain combat arms however I'm not so sure about. I was in Field Artillery. It's hard enough serving a howtizer with a bunch of guys that are able to hump rounds for hours on end. When a TOT fire mission comes in and you have to rapid fire a dozen rounds just as fast as you can and then pack everything up and move out just as fast as you can, I don't know of too many women that can sustain that degree of physical endurance to get it done in time.
I'm NOT saying there aren't women that can do it, but for most women in general they can't.
What disturbs me is when they have two seperate sets of physical requirements between men and women for the same job. If I have a job in the military that requires me to perform at a certain physical level to accomplish my mission then that standard should be the SAME for anyone else wanting to do that job. Gender should not be a consideration to physical standards that are required to complete a given mission. Sadly that is not the case many times.
Personally I don't think a woman belongs in the infantry, armor, or artillery unless they are part of the command staff. I've yet to see any woman that can pack a 150lb rucksack all day long and keep up with the men.
That's my take on things.
I agree, Hornet. Just as it is true that most men can not qualify for the Navy Seals.
The job and the individual should realistically fit each other.
With that said, even a child can accurately aim and fire an RPG and expertly dodge incoming fire; just ask the Taliban or Iraqi Insurgents.
Women can and do share the danger and pull their weight in the roles assigned, alongside their male peers.
From--> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-28-female-amputees-combat_x.htm
excerpt:
Female amputees make clear that all troops are on front lines
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
04-28-2005
Although women are eligible to fill most jobs in the military, they are barred from some of the most hazardous positions, including infantry troops, special operations commandos, tank crews and others that would place them in front-line ground combat.
But they can fly most aircraft, including fighter jets, and serve as MPs and in other jobs that put them in harm's way.
Guerrilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — where front-line and rear-echelon troops often share the same dangers — have rendered the military's efforts to regulate risk difficult if not impossible.
"Everyone pretty much acknowledges there are no rear battle areas, no forward line of troops," Halfaker says.
(http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/04/28/female-combat-inside.jpg)
Lt. Dawn Halfaker lost her right arm to a rocket propelled-grenade attack in Iraq, 'Women in combat is not really an issue,' she says. 'It is happening.'
..................
Hornet, the fact that women are in Iraq and Afganistan doing their assigned duties and going in harm's way as we, the posters to this thread, discuss whether they "should be allowed" seems quite ironic and bitter sweet to me.
I, for one, am eternally grateful and deeply respectful and humbled by their ongoing service to this country, day in and day out, and I feel the same way with regards to our men who are there with them.
TIGERESS
-
If wimmin wanna go fight and are aware of all the things that can happen then let em. Its a job that you are payed to do and when you sign the contract to go you are also (or should be) aware of the consequences.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Has it degraded our fighting abilities at all having women serve in combat? We have women doing foot patrols in Iraq, coming home wounded and sadly in body bags.
Honestly, debating whether or not they are qualified kind of is a slap in the face to the women that are fighting and dying on the front lines along with the men.
ack-ack
Amen to that Ack-Ack.
TIGERESS
-
This is quite possibly one of the dumbest threads i've ever read on this BBS...Particulary coming from people who had the option and ability to serve, yet didn't, however they think they have the right to tell someone who does want to serve, that they cant.
I don't care what anatomy a person has, if he or she is willing and becomes proficient and qualified, then thats great. They know the risks...Let them do what they do...
Are we really willing sacrifice qualified women, for less qualified men, just because they have a hanging sex organ?
Someone also said something about "what if they get raped when they are captured"....
What if a male is captured and is raped or sodomized? Is that action anybit less, than when done to a female? What if the mans head is cut off? Males and Females both potentially face some god awful treatment, but I don't see how you distinguish that one is more acceptable.
I would love to watch some of the girls that I know come and kick the ever living crap out of someone making this statement to their face.
So once again...For those who had the chance to serve but didn't, who the f*ck are you to tell someone that is willing, that she cant.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
This is quite possibly one of the dumbest threads i've ever read on this BBS...Particulary coming from people who had the option and ability to serve, yet didn't, however they think they have the right to tell someone who does want to serve, that they cant.
I don't care what anatomy a person has, if he or she is willing and becomes proficient and qualified, then thats great. They know the risks...Let them do what they do...
Are we really willing sacrifice qualified women, for less qualified men, just because they have a hanging sex organ?
Someone also said something about "what if they get raped when they are captured"....
What if a male is captured and is raped or sodomized? Is that action anybit less, than when done to a female? What if the mans head is cut off? Males and Females both potentially face some god awful treatment, but I don't see how you distinguish that one is more acceptable.
I would love to watch some of the girls that I know come and kick the ever living crap out of someone making this statement to their face.
So once again...For those who had the chance to serve but didn't, who the f*ck are you to tell someone that is willing, that she cant.
Come back when you sober
-
If a woman were capable, she should be allowed to serve.
Brutality happens to combatants and POW's regardless of sex.
Although in times of peace, men would pay more attn to women and vice versa, when the bullets fly, the training takes over.
Close bonds happen, just ask some vets that have lost their best friends in combat. The scars run deep. Wouldn't be any deeper if it were a woman.
It does require extra logistics to equip a combat military that allows women but that is a small price to pay if they're good at what they do.
-
There's a thread currently running regarding the question of reading posts prior to replying to them. Maybe thats what I'm seeing or just the natural drift that occurs when different people weigh in on a subject.
I believe the original question was, to paraphrase, "Is it wise to deploy females in combat zones?"
We have the camp that feels that it's an equal rights issue. It's not. Most civil liberties fly out the door when you enlist. In armed conflict it's about getting a job done. Obviously the collateral objective is to limit the risk to friendly combatants. This isn't about one's ambitions. It's about lives and the consequences of not putting the most appropriate resources into the engagement. To those that suggest that there's some really tough gals out there and that's sufficient reason to approve of the practice, I suggest you spend some time at the gym. Fact is, we reduce physical requirements to accommodate female personnel. Equalizing them for potential female deployment in combat roles is a simplistic solution, but equitable. Just not realistic.
Then there's the camp that feels that since they want to serve and often do with great personal sacrifice then it follows that they should, irrespective of whether it was a wise idea to begin with. I refer to the comment that since we have women on the ground, getting hurt, manning patrols etc. then we should open all the doors to anyone with the proper ambition. Because it's done does not mean it's wise. Nor does it pertain to the issue at hand.
Of course there's also those, of which I am one, who feel that as much as it pains some, it's not noble or smart to place women not only in harm's way but put them in a position to have to compete while at a substantial disadvantage. It's unfair to their fellow combatants who deserve the best we can provide. It seems that those who have weighed in who posses some real life experience with these issues tend to agree. As I understood before posting to this thread and have read here, those who have served in combat roles value physical resilience first and foremost. They've been there, their answer makes sense to me empirically, therefore I concur.
But I also feel it's not just a pragmatic issue. Its a moral one. In case it's not apparent, I'm not of the mind that gender roles we have developed over the centuries are all of a sudden obsolete or irrelevant. I think we are beginning to see that. Time will tell if we are able to regroup socially and not implode due to our collective desire to do what's "fair" as opposed to whats right.
As I said before, I don't think Moms should be soldiers. And I think most Moms would agree. If that doesn't make sense then methinks your a#% belongs in Israel.
-
Originally posted by Thruster
Of course there's also those, of which I am one, who feel that as much as it pains some, it's not noble or smart to place women not only in harm's way but put them in a position to have to compete while at a substantial disadvantage. It's unfair to their fellow combatants who deserve the best we can provide. It seems that those who have weighed in who posses some real life experience with these issues tend to agree. As I understood before posting to this thread and have read here, those who have served in combat roles value physical resilience first and foremost. They've been there, their answer makes sense to me empirically, therefore I concur.
But I also feel it's not just a pragmatic issue. Its a moral one. In case it's not apparent, I'm not of the mind that gender roles we have developed over the centuries are all of a sudden obsolete or irrelevant. I think we are beginning to see that. Time will tell if we are able to regroup socially and not implode due to our collective desire to do what's "fair" as opposed to whats right.
Thruster,
I think this isolated pair of paragraphs gets to the heart of your stance regarding men and women.
I view your stance as exceedingly patriarchal, patronizing, condescending, and dismissive, and typical of assumptions about men and women that dismiss women as male property or children or lower life forms relative to men.
Fortunately whether women are present in combat zones is not up to you and men and women of your ilk, dear.
It's up to the Joint Chiefs, and the US Congress which is populated overwhelmingly by men elected by We the People to represent us all.
Women serve the USA in combat zones because We the People choose for it to be that way if these women so choose; not if you so choose.
The Armed Forces of the United States employs people, not children.
Presently, one in six people in the armed services is female.
With that said, you have a right to your opinions and I applaud your candor about them, as misguided and assumptive as I view them to be.
I have reviewed the posts to this thread and find that the core of your dismissive attitude is in a minority.
Even I agree that from a physical standpoint, the job and the individual must realistically match. Also that 95% of the jobs in the military can be done by human beings of either gender thus are being done by human beings of either gender.
Whether or not a female has children and is present in a combat zone is her decision and the decision of Congress and the Joint Chiefs.
A woman and her reproductive organs is not property of the State nor is she the property of her husband or her Father or anyone else, including you and people of your ilk, Thruster.
The days of male ownership of females of like race and males and females of differing races are over in this country.
Got it??
Otherwise, I recommend you consider becoming a Muslim and prehaps relocating to Iran.
No offense intended nor implied, if you or any other man or woman who does not agree with or like the fact that women serve in combat zones then I say to you "write your congressional representatives or get over it.
Additionally, you are free to resign from the military or stay out of the military; we don't need your personal services to get the job done because people of both genders are in the military and combat zones to stay."
How about showing some respect for the dedication, work, and sacrifices (which includes loss of life and limb) of EVERYONE in the all volunteer Armed Forces of the United States?
TIGERESS
-
Tigress,
Despite your claim to not be primarily motivated by some dogmatic agenda, I fear in fact, you are.
No matter as since you seem unable to grasp some fundamental concepts instead endeavoring to divine some "unenlightened" or malevolent bent to what was written.
Typical of dogmatists, you don't really address the point of what is written. By attempting to make this discourse a man v. women debate, you completely evade the issue.
Using irrelevant references and catchphrases indicates a reluctance or inability to truly grasp the dialog. By invoking the status quo as justification indicates a degree of intellectual hypocrisy. Attempting to characterize my views about those around me is presumptive and arrogant. And being in the minority never bothered me, I personally view being a member of a herd quite distasteful.
As far as your attempt to impugn my regard for those that serve be mindful that in my file cabinet I still have my selective service card, DD-214, and DD-256.
I don't need to prove anything to the likes of you Dear.
-
Originally posted by Thruster
Tigress,
Despite your claim to not be primarily motivated by some dogmatic agenda, I fear in fact, you are.
No matter as since you seem unable to grasp some fundamental concepts instead endeavoring to divine some "unenlightened" or malevolent bent to what was written.
Typical of dogmatists, you don't really address the point of what is written. By attempting to make this discourse a man v. women debate, you completely evade the issue.
Using irrelevant references and catchphrases indicates a reluctance or inability to truly grasp the dialog. By invoking the status quo as justification indicates a degree of intellectual hypocrisy. Attempting to characterize my views about those around me is presumptive and arrogant. And being in the minority never bothered me, I personally view being a member of a herd quite distasteful.
As far as your attempt to impugn my regard for those that serve be mindful that in my file cabinet I still have my selective service card, DD-214, and DD-256.
I don't need to prove anything to the likes of you Dear.
Say whatever you wish, dear.
You've revealed yourself already.
What you have written is now a matter of record here and speaks for itself.
I don't need to translate it for anyone.
Mind you, this isn't at all personal. :)
I am sure we can find things with which we are in agreement in the future.
I will also say that you have no way of knowing whether I have had a military career or not; that is my private business one way or the other.
TIGERESS
-
Ya know.. maybe you guys are right and we are all the same.
We should all just wear government issue coveralls over our boxers and be called "terry1" through 390 million... maybe a bar code on our shaved heads so we knew who was who.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ya know.. maybe you guys are right and we are all the same.
We should all just wear government issue coveralls over our boxers and be called "terry1" through 390 million... maybe a bar code on our shaved heads so we knew who was who.
lazs
hahahaha :rofl
Hiya Terry1 !!! :)
Nah... Men and women are not the same. Thank God!!!! ;)
Woooo HOOOO!!!! :D
TIGERESS
PS: there are plenty of totally submissive women and women with low self-esteem as well in the world to appease a male who is compelled to dominate her in every aspect of her life. Go thee and avail thyself there of.
Want a lifemate and partner who is self-confident and sees the world as an adventure to explore and enjoy and doesn't need sheparding?
We are also here or on deployment in a war zone and the overwhelming majority of us love males and are submissive in bed because we like it like that.
Edit: Sorry Lazs, I added the PS after your post below so your post is a little out of context as to this now completed post.
Sorry, dear...
-
No? so they are feminine when they want to be but they should be men too when they want to be? They are the same but.. different? they are the same as men but men are not the same as women?
they can wear mens clothes when they want and womens when they want but men need to wear mens clothes? They can do mens jobs just as well and are equal but we shouldn't hit em and we should open the door for em and there are things we can't say around em and they are just like us but have a different idea of what sex and emotion are but they are exactly the same except they are really just like us and just like them too.. they are like super beings who can shift back and forth between being a man and being a woman.. men just need to figure out if the woman is a man/woman today or a woman/man or just a woman or just a man that day or hour right?
It all is so confusing...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
No? so they are feminine when they want to be but they should be men too when they want to be? They are the same but.. different? they are the same as men but men are not the same as women?
they can wear mens clothes when they want and womens when they want but men need to wear mens clothes? They can do mens jobs just as well and are equal but we shouldn't hit em and we should open the door for em and there are things we can't say around em and they are just like us but have a different idea of what sex and emotion are but they are exactly the same except they are really just like us and just like them too.. they are like super beings who can shift back and forth between being a man and being a woman.. men just need to figure out if the woman is a man/woman today or a woman/man or just a woman or just a man that day or hour right?
It all is so confusing...
lazs
Says Lazs: It all is so confusing...
Perhaps even more so... I don't wear slacks or pants to work.
I embrace my own gender and don't need men to define it for me.
What the hell do they know about being a woman?
Lazs, I think part of the problem is that many men try to lump us all into one single stereotype model.
We are individual human beings; same for men.
Trying to lump us all into the same pidgon hole will always fail.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
No? so they are feminine when they want to be but they should be men too when they want to be? They are the same but.. different? they are the same as men but men are not the same as women?
they can wear mens clothes when they want and womens when they want but men need to wear mens clothes? They can do mens jobs just as well and are equal but we shouldn't hit em and we should open the door for em and there are things we can't say around em and they are just like us but have a different idea of what sex and emotion are but they are exactly the same except they are really just like us and just like them too.. they are like super beings who can shift back and forth between being a man and being a woman.. men just need to figure out if the woman is a man/woman today or a woman/man or just a woman or just a man that day or hour right?
It all is so confusing...
lazs
Well said - coming from a person that often times disagrees with the content of your posts. I get a little tired of all the "super-being" role changing b.s.
-
tigress.. I would say the same, respectfully to you.. what the hell do you know about being a man?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Irwink!
Well said - coming from a person that often times disagrees with the content of your posts. I get a little tired of all the "super-being" role changing b.s.
What some preceive as role changing B.S. is actually the challanging of male stereotyping of women in general.
We aren't changing roles...
We are showing you confused guys what we, as human beings, are capable of if we, as individual women, so choose to do it.
Your view, Irwink, of women is obviously stunted and limited in scope.
If that distresses a few of you, then that's just too bad. Get over it. :rofl
Now where did I park that Darn Warthog??? :rofl :rofl :rofl :p
Hugs
TIGERESS
PS: Can you spell rehash? hahahahahahaha :rofl So many remaining men who don't get it; so little time a lifetime provides lol
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. I would say the same, respectfully to you.. what the hell do you know about being a man?
lazs
nuffin sweetie... splain it to me :p
But when you splain it, do so without referencing females or women, Ok?
TIGERESS
-
Bluedog,
Do you now see why I feared this thread was a flamebait or trolling?
I knew what was coming, dear... and it is now at hand.
Some of these men will now swarm and try dominating me into submission and failing that will attack my femininity.
It's happened here before...
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Some of these men will now swarm and try dominate me into submission and failing that will attack my femininity.
It's happened here before...
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Welcome to the swarm, dear...
I would not advise challanging me into providing quotes of posts as to previous swarms and attacks, Saxman...
Everything everyone says on the BBS is a matter of record and avaliable for quoting.
I think people just need to cool off now.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
If a woman were capable, she should be allowed to serve.
Brutality happens to combatants and POW's regardless of sex.
Although in times of peace, men would pay more attn to women and vice versa, when the bullets fly, the training takes over.
Close bonds happen, just ask some vets that have lost their best friends in combat. The scars run deep. Wouldn't be any deeper if it were a woman.
It does require extra logistics to equip a combat military that allows women but that is a small price to pay if they're good at what they do.
Hi Saburo :)
Thanks for you well considered input. Yes there are some gender specific things not required for a single gender unit but that has been worked out.
It's amazing to me, the overwhelming support servicewomen in all branches get from a majority of men actively serving with women today.
TIGERESS
-
From --> http://debitage.net/apology/com/com032703.html
Combat Is A Woman's Choice
27 March 2003
By Stentor Danielson
Among the five American prisoners of war who appeared on Iraqi television over the weekend was a woman. The capture of this servicewoman (who has not been identified in the press) has raised fears about the role of women in the military. This development comes on the heels of a scandal in the Air Force academy that revealed a pattern of cover-ups of sexual assaults against female cadets.
In 1994, the Pentagon did away with the "risk rule" that had barred women from serving in military capacities that were deemed too dangerous. Currently, women may serve in any post other than frontline infantry, special-operations forces, or armor or artillery units. This includes logistical support and supply-line positions that are put at increased risk by the current war's quick drive to Baghdad. The strategy of moving rapidly north means that American forces are leaving enemy-held towns behind the front lines, towns that can be used as staging points for Iraqi attacks on the U.S.'s less-well-defended supply lines. Meanwhile, the Marines have integrated the First Services Support Group -- which includes female soldiers -- with the First Marine Expeditionary Forces, placing women about as close to the front lines as they can get under the current rules.
When the Washington Times -- the favorite punching bag of liberals who accuse the media of having a conservative bias -- broke the story of the female POW, it quoted extensively from Elaine Donnelly, president of the Military Readiness Center, and retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who raised concerns about the POW's vulnerability to sexual assault. Saddam Hussein's regime is known to use rape against its enemies and their loved ones. For Donnelly and Maginnis, the possibility of rape formed the core of doubt that they cast on the change to the risk rule that they say was forced on the military by feminists.
The fear that women in the military are at greater risk than men -- as POWs, in hand-to-hand combat, or as sexual victims of their fellow American soldiers -- is no argument against allowing them to serve their country in any capacity that they have the skills for. To exclude women from certain roles because of the risk is to take a paternalistic attitude toward servicewomen.
The relationship between women and risk is framed in two ways. On the one hand, some -- such as the people who formulated the "risk rule" -- argue that women should be exposed to a lower level of risk than men. On the other hand, Donnelly and Maginnis’s contention is that a woman is at a higher risk than a man would be in the same situation. The first is morally unjustifiable because it takes away a woman’s ability to decide for herself what risks she is willing to face. The second, while true in many cases, does not constitute a sufficient argument for barring women from any military job.
In today's volunteer army, anyone who enlists must take responsibility for the risks he or she takes on. If a woman would be at too great a risk on the front lines, that is her call -- not the Pentagon's -- to make. I am at Clark rather than West Point because (among other reasons) I felt that the risks of serving in the military were not ones I wished to take on. A woman can make that choice as easily as a man like myself can.
The possibility that a female POW could be raped is hardly something most women would overlook. As a close female friend told me, "if the people saying this think that a woman going into the army wouldn't consider the fact that she will be at risk for sexual assault, they have no idea what it's like to be a woman." The possibility of rape is never far from the mind of a woman in a culture that, for all its advances, has a long way to go in eradicating sexism, and it seems that entering an organization dominated by men would heighten that concern. The brass has no more cause to second-guess a female recruit’s weighing of the risks of rape than they do to second-guess a male recruit’s weighing of the risks of being beaten.
In addition to the risks a woman brings on herself, there are fears of the risk that women in combat could pose to other soldiers. The (not unfounded) assumption is that the public and fellow soldiers will react more negatively to images of women killed or captured in battle than they would to images of men. At its heart, this attitude is an expression of a paternalistic attitude that women deserve special protection, which means their loss is felt more strongly.
To make military policy based on the emotional reactions of soldiers is to subordinate effective fighting to a cultural disposition. The military should not pander to its soldiers' prejudices, especially when that prejudice serves no purpose in a military setting.
The military has proven to be an effective setting for instilling cultural values in its members. The culture of machismo in our military can reinforce sexist attitudes. In so doing, our armed forces betray the trust of a public that expects them to give a sense of honor and discipline to soldiers. The Air Force rape scandal should be used as the impetus for creating a military culture that respects women as equals. In addition to the obvious primary benefit of reducing sexual assault, the Pentagon would thus remove the liability women in combat pose to their unit.
The best argument, however, is to do a simple cost-benefit comparison. With its poor pay and post-Vietnam image problem, the military needs the best minds and bodies it can get. We can't afford to arbitrarily write off the skills and potentials that female soldiers can bring to their jobs simply because they are at a higher risk of being sexually assaulted. This applies as well to other arguments against having women in combat, which I haven't had space to address here.
The military as a whole -- men and women -- is at a lower risk when the most capable and talented people are placed in all jobs (which, incidentally, means using a single genderblind standard of ability even if such a standard leads to inequalities in gender representation). We should not allow a paternalistic morality to compromise the readiness of our armed forces.
TIGERESS
-
Add "Terrible Idea" and I`m in........................... .once again.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Add "Terrible Idea" and I`m in........................... .once again.
At least you are consistant sweetie pie :p
coo
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
At least you are consistant sweetie pie :p
coo
TIGERESS
Wish I could say the same for you. :lol
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Wish I could say the same for you. :lol
Bet you do!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by soda72
It's been going down hill ever since we gave them the right to vote...
:D
Ya and how did we lose a vote that women couldn't vote on to begin with? mighty suspicious if you ask me.
-
As a younger man I used to think much of the same thoughts that have popped up here. They can't do it, they are just girls etc. The military women today know all the things that will happen to them in combat yet when they are called they serve. Don't underestimate them. Courage is not dependant on gender. Neither is character.
Its always easy to point at another group and generalize about thier capabilities. Some of the women I served with were a waste of a uniform and so were a lot of the men. All you men saying women can't perform need to look around. Women are doing the job, women are in combat and women are dying.
They are doing the job and many of you young able bodied macho men are here home safe and questioning their ability.
Honored to serve.
-
During my time in the service I was glad that there was no women on my submarine. When we had 1 female civilian contractor rider for a few days things were a royal pain in the ass. She had to have her own head (there are only 2 enlisted heads) which made things a bit awkward for the other 90 or so enlisted guys.
In order to put women full time on subs they would need to be totally redesigned to accommodate them.
Now as far as standing watch goes, they could do most tasks required with a few exceptions. Like for instance I would not want them to be a torpedoman if the hydraulic systems failed.
-
Originally posted by ded
In order to put women full time on subs they would need to be totally redesigned to accommodate them.
you don't have to redesign your subs, you Americans have to redesign your puritanical ideas about sex.
-
Jeez ya'll still talking about this?
Alright here's the protocol:
1. Women will be allowed to perform a military duty if allowed to pass said requirements for the job.
2. There shall be no seperate physical requirements for women than men to do the same job.
3. Women shall be allowed to perform any military duty which requires technological knowledge and requires very little in the way of physical differences to do said job between men and women.
It takes very little strength to push the missile fire button in a modern jet. Women have been seen to be able to accept the g forces better due to their physical construction.
However to load artillery shells at a rapid fire pace and pack all that up and move. It would very well be a hindrance and alow everybody to get killed.
Subs no, due to the living arrangements involved. Now if women want to use the same shower or head as the men, be my guest.
You could say redesign subs to allow it. But that may cause a few problems in modern submarines as they are designed to be small and have very littles space as is. To try to fit that extra space may cause problem that may jeopardize a subs main mission requirements. Now thats just on todays subs, something could be done i'm sure, is it worth the money when a subs main job is to kill and perform reconasance just to allow women i don't know.
Other than that it's no problem
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Jeez ya'll still talking about this?
Alright here's the protocol:
1. Women will be allowed to perform a military duty if allowed to pass said requirements for the job.
2. There shall be no seperate physical requirements for women than men to do the same job.
3. Women shall be allowed to perform any military duty which requires technological knowledge and requires very little in the way of physical differences to do said job between men and women.
It takes very little strength to push the missile fire button in a modern jet. Women have been seen to be able to accept the g forces better due to their physical construction.
However to load artillery shells at a rapid fire pace and pack all that up and move. It would very well be a hindrance and alow everybody to get killed.
Subs no, due to the living arrangements involved. Now if women want to use the same shower or head as the men, be my guest.
You could say redesign subs to allow it. But that may cause a few problems in modern submarines as they are designed to be small and have very littles space as is. To try to fit that extra space may cause problem that may jeopardize a subs main mission requirements. Now thats just on todays subs, something could be done i'm sure, is it worth the money when a subs main job is to kill and perform reconasance just to allow women i don't know.
Other than that it's no problem
Lead,
I reveiwed the US Armed Forces physical test requirements.
Just talking the guys now..
The older a guy gets the more of a break he gets on physical standards yet he does the same job as the younger ones.
Explain that...
TIGERESS
-
Are you talking the exact same job? Maybe they are funneling the older guys into leadership positions and they are not exactly doing the same jobs.
I know what you mean though, the older a pilot gets he can continue flying with worse eyesight. It's to keep the experience in that position in the military. It's very valuable.
However say if you are a woman trying to join the infantry. Off the bat, your're physical standards are likely too have not met the mens at first and will only get worse with time. Whereas the men met the standards they degraded over time. They want you too meet the standards at the onset. They know you'll get older. At which time they want too keep your experience for leadership reasons out on the field and you'll likely be funneled out of that in short time. Because of your experience they make slight exceptions. However if a woman didn't meet the men's requirements at first it's only likely to get worse by a much larger margin. Unless you are a female body builder.
-
Be a professional and there shouldn't be a problem - if you can't then its like every other profession/job in modern society - they should remove you not her. If they can cut it - and want to do the job, then they should. There are already plenty of woman already real contributions to armed forces across the planet...lugging a rifle around seems the last bastion.
As Cav already stated - sexual abuse of POWs is not limited to women
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
nuffin sweetie... splain it to me :p
But when you splain it, do so without referencing females or women, Ok?
TIGERESS
Wee-uns kin pee whurever we want and a heckuva lot easier! :t
(just trying to help ;))
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
...snip... The older a guy gets the more of a break he gets on physical standards yet he does the same job as the younger ones.
I'm guessing you don't have much experience with the military. The older a guy gets, it is assumed he will increase in rank. With increase in rank comes less physical 'work' and more leadership skills.
You assume as a guy gets older he has to do the same amount work as a younger soldier/sailor/marine/airmen. Generally speaking, he doesn't. The 'job' changes with increased rank. To compare a First Sergeant to a PFC is like comparing apples and oranges. They may both be 11B, but rarely will they be required to do the same work. The PFCs JOB is to fight his way up the hill, running, climbing, carrying, shooting, etc is his WORK. The First Sergeants JOB is to get that PFC up the hill, his WORK is traning the PFC in his job.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Are you talking the exact same job? Maybe they are funneling the older guys into leadership positions and they are not exactly doing the same jobs.
I know what you mean though, the older a pilot gets he can continue flying with worse eyesight. It's to keep the experience in that position in the military. It's very valuable.
However say if you are a woman trying to join the infantry. Off the bat, your're physical standards are likely too have not met the mens at first and will only get worse with time. Whereas the men met the standards they degraded over time. They want you too meet the standards at the onset. They know you'll get older. At which time they want too keep your experience for leadership reasons out on the field and you'll likely be funneled out of that in short time. Because of your experience they make slight exceptions. However if a woman didn't meet the men's requirements at first it's only likely to get worse by a much larger margin. Unless you are a female body builder.
Hi Lead,
Well... women do not get assigned the top 5% physically demanding jobs in military; those jobs that are the most physically demanding such as... no direct ground foot soldier combat meaning females are not assigned to the infantry, no commando units, no special ops units, no tank duty, etc.
I know of very few, if any, women who could lug a 150lb ruck sack all day every day for miles. They are not given a 75lb ruck sack; they simply are not assigned those duties.
With that said, the point is... there is no "one physical standard for all" for service people and never will be.
The standard is different for different people depending on age and gender.
Also looking at the standards for the youngest age group, the differences between male and female are not all that different.
According to military SOPs, military regulations do not allow assigning people to jobs they are physically unsuited to perform by virtue of gender related physical ability limitations.
Thanks, by the way, for not being an overt sexist. I mean that!
hugs
TIGERESS
-
After some though on the matter
I've decided to change my position somewhat.
Women should be allowed to serve in front line combat units one week out of the month.
That week being PMS week.
Just give em a gun. Point at the enemy positions and tell then its their fault.
The could fill in the role of berserkers very well I think and any battle would be over and one in a matter of minutes.
:p
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
After some though on the matter
I've decided to change my position somewhat.
Women should be allowed to serve in front line combat units one week out of the month.
That week being PMS week.
Just give em a gun. Point at the enemy positions and tell then its their fault.
The could fill in the role of berserkers very well I think and any battle would be over and one in a matter of minutes.
:p
Love it!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Coshy
I'm guessing you don't have much experience with the military. The older a guy gets, it is assumed he will increase in rank. With increase in rank comes less physical 'work' and more leadership skills.
You assume as a guy gets older he has to do the same amount work as a younger soldier/sailor/marine/airmen. Generally speaking, he doesn't. The 'job' changes with increased rank. To compare a First Sergeant to a PFC is like comparing apples and oranges. They may both be 11B, but rarely will they be required to do the same work. The PFCs JOB is to fight his way up the hill, running, climbing, carrying, shooting, etc is his WORK. The First Sergeants JOB is to get that PFC up the hill, his WORK is traning the PFC in his job.
Hi Coshy,
While I understand your thinking, a Sergeant's ruck sack weighs as much as a PFC's ruck sack. Yes? No?
Also, rank and age are not directly linked. A PFC can be any age legal for military service. Yes? No?
Sergeants are assigned to the infantry and go in harms way alongside PFCs. Yes? No?
Again... females are not assigned to infantry duty as combat soldiers.
Point is... there is not, nor will there ever be, a "one size fits all" single set of physical requirements for all people in the armed services that Lead and others have been espousing.
TIGERESS
-
Equality is the law of the land, and I see no reason why the military should be exempt from that. I also think women should not be exempt from registering for selective service, or given preferential disposition in child custody, child support or alimony.
-
I don't think it is a good idea to blur the sexes and their roles too much.
I think it is the women who do the blurring tho and then run back to their femininity when it all goes bad (don't hit me I'm a girl). t
They are the ones who want to cross dress and not be called crossdressers.. they are the ones who want to work with men but not be subject to rough men.
They are the ones who want to be tough but cry when the hormones kick in.
They don't mind getting extra rights but cry foul when they can't make it fair and square.
tiggress.. should all sports be co-ed? football games mix the men and women... boxing by weight only say?
Are men and women different other than some genitals? If they are different.. other than that.. can we say so? can we make rules based on that..
Or is it all fair game now? if one mouths off.. I can knock her block off.. hell... she might even be a combat vet right? she is "equal" right? or can I only do it when she is dressed like a man?
it is all so confusing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by ded
During my time in the service I was glad that there was no women on my submarine. When we had 1 female civilian contractor rider for a few days things were a royal pain in the ass. She had to have her own head (there are only 2 enlisted heads) which made things a bit awkward for the other 90 or so enlisted guys.
In order to put women full time on subs they would need to be totally redesigned to accommodate them.
Now as far as standing watch goes, they could do most tasks required with a few exceptions. Like for instance I would not want them to be a torpedoman if the hydraulic systems failed.
Females don't serve on US submarines, so the issue is moot to the subject of this thread, imho.
With that said...
There is already a seperation of people onboard submarines.
The seperation is by rank; officers and enlisted.
I am neither an advocate for, nor an opponent against, assigning females to serve on US submarines.
I simply look on to watch the debate and the results.
Thank you for your service to the country.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think it is a good idea to blur the sexes and their roles too much.
I think it is the women who do the blurring tho and then run back to their femininity when it all goes bad (don't hit me I'm a girl). t
They are the ones who want to cross dress and not be called crossdressers.. they are the ones who want to work with men but not be subject to rough men.
They are the ones who want to be tough but cry when the hormones kick in.
They don't mind getting extra rights but cry foul when they can't make it fair and square.
tiggress.. should all sports be co-ed? football games mix the men and women... boxing by weight only say?
Are men and women different other than some genitals? If they are different.. other than that.. can we say so? can we make rules based on that..
Or is it all fair game now? if one mouths off.. I can knock her block off.. hell... she might even be a combat vet right? she is "equal" right? or can I only do it when she is dressed like a man?
it is all so confusing.
lazs
Hi Lazs,
Male roles and female roles are social constructs.
A male who dresses his infant daughter for the day or prepares his daughter's meals is no less male than a prize fighter on the basis of the role he is performing. It does not make him a female.
I can fully envision George Foreman changing his daughter's diapers and rocking her to sleep.
Prior to the Civil War, the role of females who were black was slave.
Society changed... grew up as it were...
In WWII, black men in the navy were relegated to non-combat assignments because their "role" was deemed to be service duties such as mess cooks.
Again society changed... grew up as it were.
Society, like a teenager, continues to grow up.
A servicewoman is no less female than a homemaker; a homemaker is not more female than a servicewoman.
A female should only be limited by her abilities and her decisions and not by men who perceive females as being role bound.
Whether a female decides she wants to become a homemaker or a fighter pilot is her decision and up to her abilities... it is not up to men to make that decision for her.
With all this said, the majority of females are not, and will not be, inclined to be in the military, by their own choice.
With all this said, the majority of males are not, and will not be, inclined to be in the military, by their own choice.
The underlying difference here is the draft in times of all out war.
Females must not be drafted into the military unless.. this country is on the ropes and females serving in the military as draftees will prevent the country from being overrun by the communists or the islamists or whom ever the enemy may be that spells the end of this country.
Pride goeth before the fall... just ask the USSR who put females into combat because they had no choice and ultimately prevailed against Nazi Germany.
TIGERESS
PS: To quote my Father, a 30-year career Army Air Corps/USAF serviceman, "It takes a special breed of cat to choose to be in the military." Interestingly, cat is not gender specific.
Not meaning to put you on the spot... you are 60 years old thus I am curious, did you serve in Viet Nam or during the Viet Nam War? Eight service women were killed by the enemy in Viet Nam... all were officers and all were volunteers. They were nurses.
My Dad volunteered for military service and was there in Viet Nam and also WWII and Korea and served with distinction... a 35 mission B-17 crewman and was awarded many metals for his service.
We were so proud of him and he was given a military funeral not too many years ago with full military honors including a firearm salute.
-
Originally posted by culero
Wee-uns kin pee whurever we want and a heckuva lot easier! :t
(just trying to help ;))
Yeah you lucky devils! :rofl
I am so envious of that! hahahahahaha
But I wouldn't trade what I have for what you have and that's a fact, Jack. ;)
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Love it!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl
TIGERESS
yea but I gotta stop posting before my first cup of coffee.
Horrid typos even by my standards LOL
-
tigress.. I have changed diapers when there were no women around to do it. You do what you have to do but that does not make it natural or the thing to do all the time.. just like some desperate countries have used women in combat... just like we used women in mens jobs in WWII... desperation.
despite my scottish heratige.. I don't feel that there are jobs I want to do that would be better done in a dress. If women want to have a "womens only" event of any kind... more power to em.. I stay away... got better things to do.
If women want to start a company and hire nothing but women.. I don't give a crap.. I will start my own or go to someone who wants me. don't want to work around a bunch of women in any case.
contrast this with women... they want to dress like men.. act like men.. do mens jobs (badly) and then retreat back to femininity when it gets a little rough... if a job requires strength.. they simply ask that the standards be lowered. at the same time.. they want to have all the advantages that being a female confers on them in todays society...
They don't mind if you change the diapers or go to the school.. but if you get a divorce.. they should get the kid because.. well.. a kid needs its mother right?
Also.. they should get the lions share of everything and the man should support them after the divorce because.. after all.. they are just a helpless female...
They can hit you and scream the most vile things at you... say things that would get any man clobbered by another and.. well... you don't hit women..even tho... some here would tell you that women are just as tough as men.... I mean.... look at all the movies with 90 lb women kicking the crap out of 5 or six armed men if you don't believe women are tough.
The one thing about rap that I find funny... the total disrespect for women.. it is amusing in the extreme to me.. the women are saying nothing about it.. what can they say?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. I have changed diapers when there were no women around to do it. You do what you have to do but that does not make it natural or the thing to do all the time.. just like some desperate countries have used women in combat... just like we used women in mens jobs in WWII... desperation.
despite my scottish heratige.. I don't feel that there are jobs I want to do that would be better done in a dress. If women want to have a "womens only" event of any kind... more power to em.. I stay away... got better things to do.
If women want to start a company and hire nothing but women.. I don't give a crap.. I will start my own or go to someone who wants me. don't want to work around a bunch of women in any case.
contrast this with women... they want to dress like men.. act like men.. do mens jobs (badly) and then retreat back to femininity when it gets a little rough... if a job requires strength.. they simply ask that the standards be lowered. at the same time.. they want to have all the advantages that being a female confers on them in todays society...
They don't mind if you change the diapers or go to the school.. but if you get a divorce.. they should get the kid because.. well.. a kid needs its mother right?
Also.. they should get the lions share of everything and the man should support them after the divorce because.. after all.. they are just a helpless female...
They can hit you and scream the most vile things at you... say things that would get any man clobbered by another and.. well... you don't hit women..even tho... some here would tell you that women are just as tough as men.... I mean.... look at all the movies with 90 lb women kicking the crap out of 5 or six armed men if you don't believe women are tough.
The one thing about rap that I find funny... the total disrespect for women.. it is amusing in the extreme to me.. the women are saying nothing about it.. what can they say?
lazs
Lazs... Lazs... Lazs... you poor dear! :noid ...mean ole women!
Phooey on us women, huh dear? :rofl
coo
TIGERESS
-
women want to be equal, but in a special way.
-
Originally posted by john9001
women want to be equal, but in a special way.
Omg ! :O .......I agree with John lol
<------Blows brains out all over the BBS.
:lol
-
Originally posted by john9001
women want to be equal, but in a special way.
Teehee, repeat after me... men and women are different; both are equally human beings.
The Battle of the Sexes is what it is...
I could just imagine the dialog if this battle was reversed with women being the physically stronger more aggressive and dominating sex since the dawn of time! :rofl
You guys are the physically stronger more aggressive and dominating sex.
That gives you inate power; but might does not mean right.... necessarily. :)
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I could just imagine the dialog if this battle was reversed with women being the physically stronger more aggressive and dominating sex since the dawn of time!
TIGERESS
I`m sure you can.
Women are one of the grandest things on earth as a whole.
Like everything else , not all are perfect.
There are some who imagines and wishes to be men or assume a man`s role.
Those are most unappealing........even to most women.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Teehee, repeat after me... men and women are different; both are equally human beings.
The Battle of the Sexes is what it is...
I could just imagine the dialog if this battle was reversed with women being the physically stronger more aggressive and dominating sex since the dawn of time! :rofl
You guys are the physically stronger more aggressive and dominating sex.
That give you inate power; but might does not mean right.... necessarily. :)
TIGERESS
Repeat after me......There is no way to be equal yet have differing standards in any way. .........Period.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tigeress
I could just imagine the dialog if this battle was reversed with women being the physically stronger more aggressive and dominating sex since the dawn of time!
TIGERESS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jackal1
I`m sure you can.
Women are one of the grandest things on earth as a whole.
Like everything else , not all are perfect.
There are some who imagines and wishes to be men or assume a man`s role.
Those are most unappealing........even to most women.
edit: I had not thought of the reversal in terms of gloating over being the dominate sex; I was imagining all the complaining coming from the dominated side.
Men and Women are without a doubt one of God's greatest achievements.
None are perfect... we are all human.
If a particular woman chooses to be all that she can be... it's not becoming of particular men to suppress her... in my view, doing that would diminish these particular men.
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_kVP8DlImZqA/Rs7EBQYPffI/AAAAAAAAAFY/dBQYyn9OmVs/s200/ArmySlogan.jpg)
Attacking a woman's femininity for breaking stereotyped roles of "a woman's place" is low ball, in my view.
A particular woman, if she so chooses and has the requisite physical and mental abilities, can do pretty much anything within those limitations. It doesn't diminish her as a woman.
It's proven every day. :)
TIGERESS
Edit: case in point...
From--> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/TenWays/story?id=3751344&page=1
Space Station Gets Its First Woman Commander
By GINA SUNSERI
October 19, 2007 11:35:39 AM PDT
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/ap_peggy_071019_ms.jpg)
Peggy Whitson makes it look so easy. The Iowa farmer's daughter is now the first woman to command the International Space Station, and she says it's really no big deal.
Her colleague, Pam Melroy, who will command the shuttle flight scheduled to head to the space station Tuesday, said Whitson is the perfect person for the job.
"I love Peggy's leadership style," said Melroy. "I think the most important element of her style is her sense of humor, which is really just a sense of perspective. And that is really important because as a leader, one of the most important things you have to keep is the big picture. She is very direct and very kind at the same time."
Peggy Whitson was selected as an astronaut in 1996 and spent 184 days on the space station in 2002, good preparation for her new post. She will oversee the most ambitious phase of construction on the International Space Station.
"It is a technological achievement," she told ABC News before leaving for orbit in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft earlier this month. "The fact that we are putting together these pieces of hardware from all different countries is really and truly almost miraculous."
The 16 countries building the International Space Station have struggled to keep it operational, grappling with computer failures, gyroscope failures and supply issues. But that, said Whitson, is what makes the space station so valuable: learning how to keep such a base operational on orbit.
"We are using this assembly task, this very complicated assembly task in space and difficult environments," she said. "So we can use what we learn to build bases on the moon and on Mars, this is a key stepping stone to getting there."
The view, weightlessness, spacewalks: Six months in space on orbit can be rewarding.
Astronaut Clay Anderson will be returning to Earth on the next shuttle mission; he spoke wistfully about missing his family, and a good steak dinner with a loaded baked potato. He may want a beer, too, but it is politically incorrect for an astronaut to even breathe a word about alcohol these days.
-
So........you view an astronaut as being a male role as seen by the public?
I don`t. Anyone, with the right training and mental ability, should be able to accomplish that.
Their is no compromising of others that I see there.
Quite a stretch from combatant to astronaut.
If a particular woman chooses to be all that she can be... it's not becoming of particular men to suppress her... in my view, doing that would diminish these particular men.
I can agree with that up to the point that it starts compromising those around them..such as a combatant role.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Repeat after me......There is no way to be equal yet have differing standards in any way. .........Period.
Men are stronger and more aggressive and more dominate than women... nothing will ever change that, dear.
Based solely on those traits alone, we are not equal.
But we are equally human and our achievements do not diminish men; our achievements simply show that we are adult human beings; not children and not sub-human, not lesser forms of life.
I find males typical of their gender to be quite attractive; I have no aspirations to be one; and that, dear, is an honest and solemn promise.
I just believe in the freedom this country was founded on for all people to reach their potential, if they so choose.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
So........you view an astronaut as being a male role as seen by the public?
I don`t. Anyone, with the right training and mental ability, should be able to accomplish that.
Their is no compromising of others that I see there.
Quite a stretch from combatant to astronaut.
I can agree with that up to the point that it starts compromising those around them..such as a combatant role.
Jackal, I am sure you are pretty much just playing the devil's advocate... I have learned to an extent, from your expressed nature here on the BBS, that you are a good guy.
Same with Lazs and Leadpig and John and most, but not all, the others... all three of these guys seem to like to cut up with me and others here.
BTW, Peggy Whitson is not just an astronaut; Peggy is the Commander of the International Space Station.
What particular women have achieved in combat as Russian combatants is a matter of record.
Arguing that point is useless.
In my opinion, if it were all up to women there wouldn't be any combat... war is a male invention born of his aggressiveness and need to dominate not just us women but also all other men and the world.
That fact that a woman can kill a man is just that... a fact.
TIGERESS
Edit: case in point...
Woman Kills Intruder With Bare Hands --> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/08/national/main1990049.shtml
Police Say Oregon Nurse Strangled Man In Self Defense
PORTLAND, Ore., Sept. 8, 2006
(AP) A nurse returning from work discovered an intruder armed with a hammer in her home and strangled him with her bare hands, police said.
Susan Kuhnhausen, 51, ran to a neighbor's house after the confrontation Wednesday night. Police found the body of Edward Dalton Haffey, 59, a convicted felon with a long police record.
Officer Katherine Kent said homicide detectives have determined that Kuhnhausen killed Haffey in self-defense. She said a prosecutor is investigating but that the case is not expected to go to a grand jury.
Police said there was no obvious sign of forced entry at the house when Kuhnhausen, an emergency room nurse at Providence Portland Medical Center, got home from work shortly after 6 p.m.
Under Oregon law people can use reasonable deadly force when defending themselves against an intruder or burglar in their homes. Kuhnhausen was treated and released for minor injuries at Providence.
Haffey, about 5-foot-9 and 180 pounds, had convictions including conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, robbery, drug charges and possession of burglary tools. Neighbors said Kuhnhausen's size — 5-foot-7 and 260 pounds — may have given her an advantage.
“Everyone that I've talked to says 'Hurray for Susan,' said neighbor Annie Warnock, who called 911. “You didn't need to calm her. She's an emergency room nurse. She's used to dealing with crisis.”
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tigeress
...snip... The older a guy gets, the more of a break he gets on physical standards yet he does the same job as the younger ones.
Explain that...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Coshy
I'm guessing you don't have much experience with the military. The older a guy gets, it is assumed he will increase in rank. With increase in rank comes less physical 'work' and more leadership skills.
You assume as a guy gets older he has to do the same amount work as a younger soldier/sailor/marine/airmen. Generally speaking, he doesn't. The 'job' changes with increased rank. To compare a First Sergeant to a PFC is like comparing apples and oranges. They may both be 11B, but rarely will they be required to do the same work. The PFCs JOB is to fight his way up the hill, running, climbing, carrying, shooting, etc is his WORK. The First Sergeants JOB is to get that PFC up the hill, his WORK is traning the PFC in his job.
Originally posted by Tigeress
Hi Coshy,
While I understand your thinking, a Sergeant's ruck sack weighs as much as a PFC's ruck sack. Yes? No?
Also, rank and age are not directly linked. A PFC can be any age legal for military service. Yes? No?
Sergeants are assigned to the infantry and go in harms way alongside PFCs. Yes? No?
Again... females are not assigned to infantry duty as combat soldiers.
Point is... there is not, nor will there ever be, a "one size fits all" single set of physical requirements for all people in the armed services that Lead and others have been espousing.
TIGERESS
Lead,
…Just a repost, to make a point.
If we did as you are suggesting, no man older than the lowest age bracket of the Armed Forces Physical Requirements would ever be in combat or even allowed to remain in the military at all unless he could meet the youngest age physical requirements bracket.
There is no "one size fits all" physical standard for all members of the armed forces and never will be.
Again, women are not assigned to the top 5% of physically demanding jobs as I have repeatedly stated on this thread.
Those top 5% jobs women are excluded from include no infantry, no special ops units, no commando units, no tank duty... etc.
I can continue with this indefinitely should people forget/choose to forget past posts to this thread or try to avoid/ignore what has already been discussed and addressed on this thread but I would prefer avoiding the rehash.
TIGERESS
-
there are always going to be exceptions in every facet of life.. that does not mean that the exception should be the rule.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
there are always going to be exceptions in every facet of life.. that does not mean that the exception should be the rule.
lazs
You just contradicted yourself, Lazs, in view of your previous and repeated characterization of all women as being the same as those women who marry death row inmates.
Extremely few women are interested in the scum occupying death row... not the all women.
As I have previously stated and hope to avoid rehashing... the majority of women and men do not choose to be in the military but one in six people in the military are women.
Sometimes you are like a one trick pony with your anti-female blah blah blah dear.
If a female version of a Lazs were ever to start posting on this BBS, she would no doubt be run off in nothing flat... you guys would not tolerate it... and no doubt you would be leading that parade, sweetie pie.
:rofl
TIGERESS
-
not sure I follow you or that you spoke to the statement of mine that you quoted. I don't feel that I have contradicted myself. Nor do I feel that I am "anti female"
I may be "anti female trying to be men" but that is not the same thing.
please explain what you meant.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
not sure I follow you or that you spoke to the statement of mine that you quoted. I don't feel that I have contradicted myself. Nor do I feel that I am "anti female"
I may be "anti female trying to be men" but that is not the same thing.
please explain what you meant.
lazs
Ok, in previous conversations, you have repeatedly told me that all women are "blah blah blah" because "they" marry death row inmates... characterizing all women as those idiots.
You refused to accept my contention that these few idiots did not represent all women and were instead exceptions to the norm.
If you like, I can quote ya...
Now I show a report of a woman bare-handedly killing a man and you respond with ... that’s an exception. It is an exception and I agree.
However, it seems you contradict yourself to me depending on the point you are trying to make.
There are women who marry death row inmates but they are in the extreme minority; they are exceptions. You disagreed.
You can't have it both ways Lazs.
Characterizing women as trying to be male who challenge male stereotyping of women, is what it is... male sexist bias.
A man is something that I am not; granted you guys got a lot of perks but I am content to be what I am... not limited to what you think I should or should be doing according to you.
Attacking a woman's femininity is a common tactic employed to suppress us and reflects poorly on men who try to use that tactic.
One on one with an average man bent on killing me and all things being equal I don't stand a chance.
But I, like most women, possess the intelligence to bring him down nonetheless by switching the odds to our favor if possible and if pushed into it with no way out, I would do it with total ruthlessness and probably shoot him in the back... and empty the gun... while he slept.
Self-preservation is a human instinct.
TIGERESS
PS: I think about everything has been discussed and we are now in a repeating re-hash mode.
I see that as pointless.
So say what you wish to say and have the last word... I will now retire from this thread. Ok?
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Men are stronger and more aggressive and more dominate than women... nothing will ever change that, dear.
Based solely on those traits alone, we are not equal.
Don't think i agree with that.
But we are equally human and our achievements do not diminish men; our achievements simply show that we are adult human beings; not children and not sub-human, not lesser forms of life.
Totally agree with that.
I find males typical of their gender to be quite attractive; I have no aspirations to be one; and that, dear, is an honest and solemn promise.
No comment
I just believe in the freedom this country was founded on for all people to reach their potential, if they so choose.
Yep i agree with that.
Perhaps some of your thinking about your own gender keeps you not all the way equal. Maybe if you became a powerlifter you could kick Mike Tyson's butt. Some of that stuff you say about women ain't all the way true.
You can't want the same job and expect to be treated like the damsel in distress all the time.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Jackal, I am sure you are pretty much just playing the devil's advocate... I have learned to an extent, from your expressed nature here on the BBS, that you are a good guy.
Huh?
BTW, Peggy Whitson is not just an astronaut; Peggy is the Commander of the International Space Station.
Since you didn`t answer the question I have to assume that you view the career of astronaut to be a male role as viewed by society in general. How you figure that I have no idea. We sent monkeys into space. So what`s the deal with Peggy Whitson in terms of females in a combat zone. They don`t have a lot of firefights on the launch pad that i can recollect.
What particular women have achieved in combat as Russian combatants is a matter of record.
As casualy as I can put it........screw Russia. I certainly wouldn`t desire to have anything that I can think of patterned after Russia. Desperation breeds some weird actions.
In my opinion, if it were all up to women there wouldn't be any combat... war is a male invention born of his aggressiveness and need to dominate not just us women but also all other men and the world.
Horse biscuits!!!! :D
Sorry, but that is the biggest wagon load of manure you have posted to date.
If it were left up to women their would be wars over a wind direction change.
A truck load sale on Chanel #5 could cause a global conflict if left up to women. :rofl
That fact that a woman can kill a man is just that... a fact.
The common cold can, if left untreated, kill a man. That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
As for the Intruder story you posted.................This is supposed to mean what exactly?
If it had been my better half he would have been lucky not to receive a quick double tap between the peepers...................... .BUT that is not a combat zone and it does not compromise the safety of other combatants.
This is a good example though. You have a tendency to wander aimlessly from one subject to another and I suppose, in your, mind they are related.
It`s understandable.....constant mood swings, emotion changes at the rate of fire equal to Puff The Magic Dragon. :aok
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Don't think i agree with that.
Perhaps some of your thinking about your own gender keeps you not all the way equal. Maybe if you became a powerlifter you could kick Mike Tyson's butt. Some of that stuff you say about women ain't all the way true.
Dear Lead,
This I don't see as a rehash of what had been discussed to death on the thread.
Why would I want to be "equal all the way" in the context you are using the term equal?
That would nuteralize me as a woman. No thanks.
I don't want to be something I am not, Lead.
I just dont want to be given the idiot treatment nor treated like a child and told like a child that I can not do something I want to do that is within the scope of my gender and personal abilities.
Bulking up and kicking Mike Tyson's butt is a guy thing and is not on my radar. I just don't think like that.
I don't want to hurt people physically yet forced self-defense or defense of others is what it is.
If I need to do that I will employ an equalizer... If I were forced into a gun fight with no way out of it I would like to bring an A-10 Warthog.
The concept of "equal" is critical, Lead.
That was the whole problem with the Equal Rights Amendment and the reason it was not ratified.
In my opinion, it broke down the fundemental and desireable differences of the sexes for the sake of sameness.
Phooey to that!
Men are human, like us, but special with regards to that which makes them male.
Women are human but special with regards to that which makes us female.
That specialness is very important for everyone who is hetero... 96% of the 6 plus billion people on the planet.
Males and females are equally special and equally different.
Males and females are both equally human.
The male and female genders do not equal each other.
I think the concepts of "equal" are at issue here.
TIGERESS
-
tigress.. would you agree that it is far more likely that a woman would marry a murderer or worthless male than it is that they will kill a man bare handed in a fair fight?
There are exceptions and then there are exceptions... it is a matter of degree. your exception is like getting killed by a meteorite.. mine.. like getting in a bad car wreck.
The differences between men and women are not in the least social constructs.
It has been proven that boys and girls are different in many ways from almost birth.. I have raised both boys and girls and am raising a grand daughter. Not to get too personal but have you raised children?
I ask because most who say men and women are the same never have raised kids.. most who realize they are different have spent many years watching kids grow up.
Putting women in combat when there is no reason is crossing the line in a way that is simply wrong. It is over the top... the same for firemen and policemen.. they shouldn't be either.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. would you agree that it is far more likely that a woman would marry a murderer or worthless male than it is that they will kill a man bare handed in a fair fight?
There are exceptions and then there are exceptions... it is a matter of degree. your exception is like getting killed by a meteorite.. mine.. like getting in a bad car wreck.
The differences between men and women are not in the least social constructs.
It has been proven that boys and girls are different in many ways from almost birth.. I have raised both boys and girls and am raising a grand daughter. Not to get too personal but have you raised children?
I ask because most who say men and women are the same never have raised kids.. most who realize they are different have spent many years watching kids grow up.
Putting women in combat when there is no reason is crossing the line in a way that is simply wrong. It is over the top... the same for firemen and policemen.. they shouldn't be either.
lazs
Although you avoided my question about your military background I will answer your question. I raised two boys.
Only a freeking nut job would be interested in marrying a freeking death row inmate, Lazs. That is the exception.
It is far more likely a male will kill a female with bare hands than the reverse but... it does happen thus it is true that a woman "can" do it meaning it is possible though not probable.
You are misconstruing what I said Lazs.
I was speaking of society's definition of gender ROLES as social constructs. Roles.. you know... like something actors do or politicians do.
"Men work in the workplace."
"Women stay home and are homemakers."
"Men go to war."
"Women stay home."
Those are societial gender roles.
Of course males and females are different!!!!! jeez @#$%^&$%
TIGERESS
-
men go to war and kill others and women do not.. is not a social construct.
You need to look at violent crime stats of men and women if you think that we are the same and that our nature is simply a social construct.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
men go to war and kill others and women do not.. is not a social construct.
You need to look at violent crime stats of men and women if you think that we are the same and that our nature is simply a social construct.
lazs
Some women do go to war; some men do stay home.
Regardless of what society thinks are gender roles.
Society continues to grow up, to learn, thus it is changing... the biology of men and women is a constant.
I certainly don't want to go to war unless I have to and I think most men and women feel the same way. Thankfully this country is not in a position to need to draft women into a war.
Lazs, again... we are not the same.
How many freeking times do I have to rehash this?????????
Actual Biological Gender Differences are not the same thing as socially defined gender roles!
Socially defined gender roles is Cultural determinism.
See --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_determinism
In the not too distant past, Society deemed women as deserving limited rights on a level with a minor, a child, because the socially definded role of a husband was defined as being solely responsible for his wife and children in all matters.
Why do you think religion thus the law looks sternly upon divorce?
It isn't to protect the husband, rather to protect the wife and children.
We are not children!!!!!!!!
Those of us who totally depend on our husband for food, clothing and shelter and health care are pretty much at his mercy and dependability.
Personally, I didn't like being at someone's mercy... been there; done that.
I choose to be self-sufficient from a money standpoint to protect myself and be a financial contributor to the marriage, not a consumer.
Socially defined "gender roles" are "things society thinks men and women should and should not do."
Women can't sucessfully play men's pro football against men or sucessfully compete against men as prize fighters and that is not a limitation placed on women by society, it is a biological limitation.
If there were those of us who could successfully do that, there would be some women doing it inspite of what society thinks is and is not "a woman's place."
I certainly would not do it and most other women wouldn't be interested either.
I have reviewed the violent crime stats in the past and just did so again...
Men are more likely than women to be a victim of a violent crime and homicide.
In general, for both fatal and non-fatal violence, we women are at higher risk than men to be victimized by an intimate meaning spouse or love interest.
From the US Department of Justice--> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvvc.pdf
I swear... sometimes I think you purposefully confuscate/confuse the issues on purpose in an effort to play a shell game.
TIGERESS
-
tigress... calm down and read. I didn't say that men were the victims of violent crimes... what I was saying was that men instigate violent crime. Men are more violent than women... war is violence.
war may or may not require upper body strength but.. when it does.. you better have it.
Policemen and firemen lowering the standards to let women in is also crossing the line... So far as I know.. no policemen were ever raped before they started allowing women in.. the dirty little secret is the amount of women police that are attacked compared to the men.
I weigh 185 lbs.. If I am in a fire and a fireman responds and I need to be carried out.. I want the fireman to be able to.
Men and women are different.. you keep telling me that but then you seem to be saying that it only matters when you want it to matter. I am glad that you think the divorce laws are unjust... how do you feel about assault laws?
My point is that the law is unequal because it recognizes that women can't defend themselves against men. the law is right. to pretend that a woman soldier or policeman is a good thing is to ignore this fact.
To pretend that men will not react differently to a wounded or captured woman soldier is to deny facts.
You simply can't have it both ways.. we are either different or we are not.. we are either ideally suited to some jobs better than women or we are all equal in everything.
lazs
-
Shoot the Women First
hmmm read that ...seems lazs is correct , women are more idealy suited to some things more than men
-
Hmmm.....
What would Tom Cruise do?
:huh
Mac
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress... calm down and read. I didn't say that men were the victims of violent crimes... what I was saying was that men instigate violent crime. Men are more violent than women... war is violence.
war may or may not require upper body strength but.. when it does.. you better have it.
Policemen and firemen lowering the standards to let women in is also crossing the line... So far as I know.. no policemen were ever raped before they started allowing women in.. the dirty little secret is the amount of women police that are attacked compared to the men.
I weigh 185 lbs.. If I am in a fire and a fireman responds and I need to be carried out.. I want the fireman to be able to.
Men and women are different.. you keep telling me that but then you seem to be saying that it only matters when you want it to matter. I am glad that you think the divorce laws are unjust... how do you feel about assault laws?
My point is that the law is unequal because it recognizes that women can't defend themselves against men. the law is right. to pretend that a woman soldier or policeman is a good thing is to ignore this fact.
To pretend that men will not react differently to a wounded or captured woman soldier is to deny facts.
You simply can't have it both ways.. we are either different or we are not.. we are either ideally suited to some jobs better than women or we are all equal in everything.
lazs
You and I both know that generally speaking, on a physical level, men and women are not equals. Men are superior. I have said that before.
In really heavy physical jobs men are better suited than women.
That is why women are not in the infantry.
TIGERESS
-
We have to have women in combat roles, as our enemies are doing it.
In Russia's Special Forces, for example, an elite Airborne Assault group has an all female reconnaissance and sabotage platoon. It would be their role in war to go behind the enemy lines, and gather intelligence, and commit acts of sabotage.
Here is a photo of some of the women who are in this elite unit:
(http://img.rian.ru/images/5340/66/53406652.jpg)
(http://img.rian.ru/images/5340/69/53406919.jpg)
Women are also serving in the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
(http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/AP_iran_femme_guard340.jpg)
-
Technically, there is nothing in women themselves that prevents women from participating in combat. Quite a few are physically capable of withstanding the conditions.
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. Men behave differently around women and usually not for the better in army unit sense. They tend to be come more aggressive and competitive toward other men in their unit which is not a good thing. It happens because men have balls and hormones and are biologically programed to behave like that.
In my army service I've seen a few occasions in which a singular woman is capable of being accepted into a group of men as "one of the guys" and such behavior is avoided. I've seen many more cases of the opposite. If there is a large number of women, the change of behavior in the men is almost guarantied.
Men are primitive creatures that think with their balls. No amount of education will erase that. It is better to accept this male limitation and work around it, than to ignore it for the sake of some "equal opportunity" agenda.
-
Women kill men in war.
Nothing anyone says can alter that fact.
TIGERESS
from--> http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/tayvie.html
excerpt:
Vietnamese Women at War
Fighting for Ho Chi Minh and the Revolution
(http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/images/tayvie.jpg)
For as long as the Vietnamese people fought against foreign enemies, women were a vital part of that struggle. The victory over the French at Dien Bien Phu is said to have involved hundreds of thousands of women, and many of the names in Viet Cong unit rosters were female. These women were living out the ancient saying of their country, "When war comes, even women have to fight."
Women from Hanoi and the countryside fought alongside their male counterparts in both the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese military in their wars against the South Vietnamese government and its French and American allies from 1945 to 1975. Sandra Taylor now draws on interviews with many of these women and on an array of newly opened archives to illuminate their motivations, experiences, and contributions--presenting not cold facts but real people.
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.
-
bozon hit on it.. it is the way that women affect the men in war..or.. some jobs. It is the way the enemy treats the women it comes in contact with and how that affects the men and the people at home.
She may consider herself a man but.. no one else does.
desperate countries will do desperate things.. we are not desperate at this time.
as for police.. can't get the full article but women police are attacked when the emotions run high.. or the attacker is too loaded to realize that a male policeman will just come and arrest him no matter how many of the women officers he beats up,...
"Cara E. Rabe-Hemp
Illinois State University, Normal
Amie M. Schuck
University of Illinois at Chicago
Violence against officers is an important topic not only because of the negative consequences to the officer but also because it is at the core of one of the most debated issues regarding female officers—their ability to deal with hostile citizens. Using arrest data from several metropolitan departments, the research compared gender differences in assaults on officers, as well as situational and individual officer factors related to the assaults. The findings suggest that when compared to male officers, female officers are at an increased risk for being assaulted in family conflict situations. Furthermore, the results suggest that female officers are at the greatest risk of being assaulted in family conflict situations when the assailant is impaired. More research is needed to better understand why family conflict situations and intoxicated assailants are especially dangerous for female officers and what policies can be instituted to mitigate this potentially threatening situation.
Key Words: assaults • domestic violence • gender • police victimization • policing"
don't get me started on the lowered standards for firemen....
Soooo.. no, women doing mens jobs is not a great idea unless you are desperate. It works poorly and it diminishes us as a people.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bozon hit on it.. it is the way that women affect the men in war..or.. some jobs. It is the way the enemy treats the women it comes in contact with and how that affects the men and the people at home.
She may consider herself a man but.. no one else does.
desperate countries will do desperate things.. we are not desperate at this time.
as for police.. can't get the full article but women police are attacked when the emotions run high.. or the attacker is too loaded to realize that a male policeman will just come and arrest him no matter how many of the women officers he beats up,...
"Cara E. Rabe-Hemp
Illinois State University, Normal
Amie M. Schuck
University of Illinois at Chicago
Violence against officers is an important topic not only because of the negative consequences to the officer but also because it is at the core of one of the most debated issues regarding female officers—their ability to deal with hostile citizens. Using arrest data from several metropolitan departments, the research compared gender differences in assaults on officers, as well as situational and individual officer factors related to the assaults. The findings suggest that when compared to male officers, female officers are at an increased risk for being assaulted in family conflict situations. Furthermore, the results suggest that female officers are at the greatest risk of being assaulted in family conflict situations when the assailant is impaired. More research is needed to better understand why family conflict situations and intoxicated assailants are especially dangerous for female officers and what policies can be instituted to mitigate this potentially threatening situation.
Key Words: assaults • domestic violence • gender • police victimization • policing"
don't get me started on the lowered standards for firemen....
Soooo.. no, women doing mens jobs is not a great idea unless you are desperate. It works poorly and it diminishes us as a people.
lazs
Lazs,
Seems to me, many female firefighters are EMTs, not ladderwomen.
You can buy a Female Firefighters calander and donate to America's Female Firefighters at their website.
http://www.americasfemalefirefighters.com/
TIGERESS
-
and not one of em can carry a 175 realistic dummy up the five flights of stairs that was the original requirement.
Yep.. fun to look at. I wonder if it is sexual harrassment to look at the calender tho? I bet it is not workplace safe in todays mixed gender workplace where even a smile can cause a lawsuit.
I think your site proves my point exactly.. those women want it both ways.. they want men to lust after em as sexual objects when they want it but to be neutered harem guards the rest of the time. They want it both ways.. that is why it doesn't work.
Anyone who thinks it does work has just never seen how good it can be without the tension.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and not one of em can carry a 175 realistic dummy up the five flights of stairs that was the original requirement.
Yep.. fun to look at. I wonder if it is sexual harrassment to look at the calender tho? I bet it is not workplace safe in todays mixed gender workplace where even a smile can cause a lawsuit.
I think your site proves my point exactly.. those women want it both ways.. they want men to lust after em as sexual objects when they want it but to be neutered harem guards the rest of the time. They want it both ways.. that is why it doesn't work.
Anyone who thinks it does work has just never seen how good it can be without the tension.
lazs
Don't men want it both ways?
Why should women have to be de-sexed and cease being attractive and female in order to fit in?
Thinking of women as sex objects is man's doing.
Women are a lot more than just eye candy for horny boys, Lazs, contrary to popular locker room guy myth.
Police women are in far more danger of ill treatment from their male peers than perps on the streets.
Now isn't that a fine commentary on the state of affairs...
Ok, now blame the women for the behavior of men, dear.
Thank goodness there are also well mannered police officers who treat their sister LEOs with respect, officer to officer.
lazs, your anti-female rants typifies the sexual warfare going on by men against women who dare invade their so-called guy space.
Time to grow up...
TIGERESS
Edit: Ruling: Female cops treated unfairly--> http://www.timesunion.com/ASPStories/Story.asp?StoryID=647517&Category=REGION&LinkFrom=RSS
Ruling: Female cops treated unfairly
Saratoga Springs department criticized for inadequate facilities for women on staff
By DENNIS YUSKO, Staff writer
Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Saturday, December 15, 2007
SARATOGA SPRINGS -- City police headquarters provides unequal and discriminatory facilities for its 15 female officers and dispatchers, the state Division of Human Rights found this week.
After an investigation, Michael Kendall, regional director of the Division of Human Rights, said probable cause exists that the city "has engaged in or is engaging in" unlawful discrimination of its police department's female workers.
The ruling came in response to an October complaint by dispatcher Suzanne Green and other female members of the force, who contended the station's limited space in the basement of City Hall offered them inadequate locker room and restroom facilities.
The ruling sets up a public hearing before an administrative law judge in Albany within the next 60 days. The judge will determine whether discrimination occurred and whether remedies are needed.
The judge could award monetary damages and order the city to end the discriminatory practices, said Tom Shanahan, deputy commissioner for the Division of Human Rights.
-
TIGERESS you have to admit that there are some jobs that women cant do as well as men,right?:)
-
Originally posted by KgB
TIGERESS you have to admit that there are some jobs that women cant do as well as men,right?:)
Yup
We are utter failures at sperm donating hahahahaha :rofl
Just kidding dear.
Yes I agree there are things men are better equiped for.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Charon
My thought is that if a female soldier could life my, say, 200 lb bulk over her shoulder and haul me off the battle field or pull me out of a burning APC I would have no problem with that. Otherwise, she is endangering my life for a political statement. Combat is still about kill or be killed, and physicality still plays a notable role in that in many MOS'
As laser said, if she can perform the task without adjustment or accommodation for he physical abilities then fine. I was never a recruitment poster bulk of muscle as a soldier, but I could perform my combat arms task to standards.
Charon
That hit the nail on the head.
I'm a reservist in my spare time and there are several women I don't have a problem serving with. There are a few I do. That being said, I can think of several men I have a problem serving with for the exact same reason. When pulling your 200lb buddy out of trouble, gender doesn't matter. You just have to have the guts and strength to do it.
As far as being raped or whatever. The women know the risks. Besides how many men throughout history have been castrated, tortured and killed while in captivity ( I can think of worse but I don't want to get too graphic). Or maybe these things aren't as bad as a woman being sexually assaulted?
-
Originally posted by MotorOil1
That hit the nail on the head.
I'm a reservist in my spare time and there are several women I don't have a problem serving with. There are a few I do. That being said, I can think of several men I have a problem serving with for the exact same reason. When pulling your 200lb buddy out of trouble, gender doesn't matter. You just have to have the guts and strength to do it.
As far as being raped or whatever. The women know the risks. Besides how many men throughout history have been castrated, tortured and killed while in captivity ( I can think of worse but I don't want to get too graphic). Or maybe these things aren't as bad as a woman being sexually assaulted?
Women are not assigned to the Infantry.
Risk of being sexually assaulted and raped is greater from a US servicewoman's male peer than the risk of capture thus rape by the enemy.
That's a hell of a commentary on the respect between soldiers of the same Army, huh? Real squealing Heros :noid
TIGERESS
-
The females I want in the combat zones are zombie females.
Or females with freakin' lasers on their heads.
Either/or...you pick.
-
Tigress, I'm curious about how you would respond to this.
Originally posted by bozon
Technically, there is nothing in women themselves that prevents women from participating in combat. Quite a few are physically capable of withstanding the conditions.
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. Men behave differently around women and usually not for the better in army unit sense. They tend to be come more aggressive and competitive toward other men in their unit which is not a good thing. It happens because men have balls and hormones and are biologically programed to behave like that.
In my army service I've seen a few occasions in which a singular woman is capable of being accepted into a group of men as "one of the guys" and such behavior is avoided. I've seen many more cases of the opposite. If there is a large number of women, the change of behavior in the men is almost guarantied.
Men are primitive creatures that think with their balls. No amount of education will erase that. It is better to accept this male limitation and work around it, than to ignore it for the sake of some "equal opportunity" agenda.
-
I have no problem with women in combat. I trained with several that I would rather have had on the front lines with me than the men that were there.
In my opinion, in our great military, there should be no distinction between women and men just liek there should be no racial distinction. I figure everyone should have the same physical and mental standards and those should determine whether you are fit for combat duty. Your results should go before the board with no name/photo attached. I had several of the women who could pop out more push-ups and sit-ups than I could. Does that mean I was less fit for a comabt role since I preformed poorer than my fellow female colleagues? Nope, I was approved for combat no questions asked because I met all the required standards for it.
additional commentary below
Here's a ringer for you... In my opinion taking into consideration how wars are fought now days. A woman in a front line combat infantry unit would be less prone to be taken POW than one who drives in a logistical convoy. The front line unit would be prepared for combat. A logitics convoy, not so much... trust me, you'd be surprised how non-'combat effective' someone who rides around in a truck is, what would surprise you even more is if they could locate the M-16/M-4, the ammo, and the gun actually function. Given how long the logistic convoys would have to travel, adn the fact that they are very lacking proper escorts at times... they are a much easier target and would provide more opportunity to be taken POW than a member of a front lien infantry unit.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bozon
Technically, there is nothing in women themselves that prevents women from participating in combat. Quite a few are physically capable of withstanding the conditions.
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. Men behave differently around women and usually not for the better in army unit sense. They tend to be come more aggressive and competitive toward other men in their unit which is not a good thing. It happens because men have balls and hormones and are biologically programed to behave like that.
In my army service I've seen a few occasions in which a singular woman is capable of being accepted into a group of men as "one of the guys" and such behavior is avoided. I've seen many more cases of the opposite. If there is a large number of women, the change of behavior in the men is almost guarantied.
Men are primitive creatures that think with their balls. No amount of education will erase that. It is better to accept this male limitation and work around it, than to ignore it for the sake of some "equal opportunity" agenda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Tigress, I'm curious about how you would respond to this.
Hi Benny,
Using biology as an excuse for disrespect and ill treatment and in cases felonious sexual assault and rape won’t cut it as a defense in a civil or criminal court of law or a Military Courts Marshal.
It's a good way to get frag’ed or pushed off a building or bridge by the female soldier's male peers as well in extreme cases.
Some men will not tolerate continued "biologically induced" ill treatment by a rotten apple of fellow soldiers who happen to be female.
TIGERESS
-
I don't think that's at all what he was trying to say. I didn't see him excusing anything, especially not sexual assault. What I saw was a good reason why men and women should not come together in the combat zone.
Originally posted by bozon
Men are primitive creatures that think with their balls. No amount of education will erase that. It is better to accept this male limitation and work around it, than to ignore it for the sake of some "equal opportunity" agenda.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bozonMen are primitive creatures that think with their balls. No amount of education will erase that. It is better to accept this male limitation and work around it, than to ignore it for the sake of some "equal opportunity" agenda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Benny Moore
I don't think that's at all what he was trying to say. I didn't see him excusing anything, especially not sexual assault. What I saw was a good reason why men and women should not come together in the combat zone.
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.[/b]
That is the same old tired excuse some men have been spouting forever.
Women are a fact of life, nothing new here, and there is no excuse for bad behavior.
If a guy pulls crap on his female peer and another soldier stuck an M-16 up his six and said, "do it again and next time I will pull the trigger". You can bet the perp will usually get closer to God and rethink his life.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
I don't think that's at all what he was trying to say. I didn't see him excusing anything, especially not sexual assault. What I saw was a good reason why men and women should not come together in the combat zone.
Benny,
Women are not assigned to the Infantry.
Also, men have gone over the top forever when one of their close buddies gets hit. It is training that keeps people from pulling stunts that get them killed. The stupid die early.
Also, some women, like some men, are born trouble makers. They will also get theirs from the commanders sooner or later if they are playing tail swishing games to cause trouble.
An ex-boyfriend of mine, an Army Colonel, and I have spoken many times about all this... according to him, members of an unblooded unit will only pull dumb crap till they wise up or get themselves killed.
A battle tested blooded unit is smarter about staying alive.
TIGERESS
PS: How are the hand issues coming along, dear?
Flying ok now, I hope?? Last time we talked you weren't able to fly...
-
If I could get rid of my sex drive, I'd gladly do it.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Women are not assigned to the Infantry.
Risk of being sexually assaulted and raped is greater from a US servicewoman's male peer than the risk of capture thus rape by the enemy.
That's a hell of a commentary on the respect between soldiers of the same Army, huh? Real squealing Heros :noid
TIGERESS
That's an interesting comment. I've often thought about this as a problem but you never hear anything about it? At least I haven't.
That being said I'm with the Canadian Forces. All occupations are open to women, you just have to meet the qualifications of the job which from what I've seen are not gender or religious specific. For example if the job requires you to be able to carry 200lbs a distance of 100m, then you're in.
The CF opened all occupations to women in 1989 and I haven't heard of any problems. I haven't gone looking for problems but policy hasn't changed in almost 20 years. The only occupation which is restricted from women is submarine duty.
To my knowledge there has only been one CF woman killed in front line duty in recent history. No one has been captured and overall, women have not been an issue with the CFs.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
If I could get rid of my sex drive, I'd gladly do it.
If you were in combat your sex drive would probably take a back seat to basic survival, dear.
'Sides baggy camos, green face battle paint, bad breath, and not having a bath for a week or two would no doubt make any woman a bit less... interesting to another dog soldier. ;)
...especially after watching her blow the brains out of an enemy combatant with her M-16 then bark orders to her platoon.
peww-eeee! :rofl
TIGERESS
-
Tigress,
You ever been in combat, blown anybody away or barked orders at dogfaces in the heat of battle? Kinda projecting here arnt ya madam..............dogfaces and devildogs on this board tend to not project like you do........it's an aquired experience and taste.......:)
-
Originally posted by MotorOil1
That's an interesting comment. I've often thought about this as a problem but you never hear anything about it? At least I haven't.
That being said I'm with the Canadian Forces. All occupations are open to women, you just have to meet the qualifications of the job which from what I've seen are not gender or religious specific. For example if the job requires you to be able to carry 200lbs a distance of 100m, then you're in.
The CF opened all occupations to women in 1989 and I haven't heard of any problems. I haven't gone looking for problems but policy hasn't changed in almost 20 years. The only occupation which is restricted from women is submarine duty.
To my knowledge there has only been one CF woman killed in front line duty in recent history. No one has been captured and overall, women have not been an issue with the CFs.
ooooohhhh If you go looking for the information its all there.
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
-
Again, I'm referring to the CF. As I mentioned policy hasn't changed in almost 20 years for Canada. That speaks for itself.
Wonder why it's such a problem for the US. Another huge culture difference between Canada and the US?
-
Originally posted by bustr
Tigress,
You ever been in combat, blown anybody away or barked orders at dogfaces in the heat of battle? Kinda projecting here arnt ya madam..............dogfaces and devildogs on this board tend to not project like you do........it's an aquired experience and taste.......:)
My military experience or non-experience is private information.
But suffice it to say, I am a military brat born and raised.
Have been up to my ears in it and have been around military types all my life.
Project? yes, I project but only to the extent necessary to get a point across when needed.
I don't even like discussing this but a lot of guys are interested in it and a few people diss’ing women get me motivated as well.
'Sides, dogfaces and devildogs are your words, not mine.
With that said, I have been subjected to just about every military movie ever to come out of Hollywood because of who I choose to keep company with. So yes... I have an ear for mil-jargon such as FUBAR and a BUFF and Serra Hotel and AMF.
I can also tell you that I am a teacher among other things I do for a living and thus accustomed to the need of projection when needed.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
My military experence or non-experience is private information.
But suffice it to say, I am a military brat born and raised.
Have been up to my ears in it and have been around military types all my life.
Project? yes, I project but only to the extent necessary to get a point across when needed.
TIGERESS
I'm a military brat also. You are being deceptive on purpose. Both of my parents eventually retired from NSA at the end of the cold war, my father translated russian for SAC and routing of U2's and RB57's over Asiatic Russia, mother analysed Russian military stratgies, so what. You are not answering the question in favor of retaining control of your thread and your personal bias to women are as good as men at everything.
Have you personaly been in combat doing what you are professing expert knowlage of? The dogfaces and devildogs on this board who have don't talk about it. Goes with the territory of having been there. Respect for them rather than your bias to your agenda would dictate a better choice of imagery.........This kinda reminds me of the prevailing cultural attituide that got that F14 femal pilot Lt. Kara S. Hultgreen and her instructor killed during the Clinton era.......
-
Originally posted by bustr
I'm a military brat also. You are being deceptive on purpose. Both of my parents eventually retired from NSA at the end of the cold war, my father translated russian for SAC and routing of U2's and RB57's over Asiatic Russia, mother analysed Russian military stratgies, so what. You are not answering the question in favor of retaining control of your thread and your personal bias to women are as good as men at everything.
Have you personaly been in combat doing what you are professing expert knowlage of? The dogfaces and devildogs on this board who have don't talk about it. Goes with the territory of having been there. Respect for them rather than your bias to your agenda would dictate a better choice of imagery.........This kinda reminds me of the prevailing cultural attituide that got that F14 femal pilot Lt. Kara S. Hultgreen and her instructor killed during the Clinton era.......
I am not being deceptive, dear.
I am telling you flat out, my military background is not any of your business.
If you are trying to pick a fight with me it isn't going to work.
If you don't like what I have to say then don't read it.
If you have an axe to grind against women standing ground, take it else where.
If you want to talk and discuss, fine, just dont take it to a personal attack level.
Ok?
And, no where, not at any time, have I intimated I have been or not been in the military when conversing on this BBS.
Search the user name TIGERESS if you dont believe that.
TIGERESS
Edit: REVLON's superiors got her killed. She should have never been given a carrier qualification; she was over her head.
With that said, what happened to her has happened to men.
And, by the way, Bustr, her REO survived the crash; Revlon ejected while her plane was inverted due to a snap roll and she was rocket propelled head first into the sea.
Her REO ejected to safety.
She blew it big time; should have never even been allowed to be there.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
If you were in combat your sex drive would probably take a back seat to basic survival, dear.
'Sides baggy camos, green face battle paint, bad breath, and not having a bath for a week or two would no doubt make any woman a bit less... interesting to another dog soldier. ;)
...especially after watching her blow the brains out of an enemy combatant with her M-16 then bark orders to her platoon.
peww-eeee! :rofl
TIGERESS
I guess you've been there then......................... .......I hope some on this board may remember Camerone Day other wise.
-
Originally posted by bustr
I guess you've been there then......................... .......I hope some on this board may remember Camerone Day other wise.
Guessing is allowed :rofl
Camerone Day? You mean April 30th?
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by MotorOil1
That's an interesting comment. I've often thought about this as a problem but you never hear anything about it? At least I haven't.
That being said I'm with the Canadian Forces. All occupations are open to women, you just have to meet the qualifications of the job which from what I've seen are not gender or religious specific. For example if the job requires you to be able to carry 200lbs a distance of 100m, then you're in.
The CF opened all occupations to women in 1989 and I haven't heard of any problems. I haven't gone looking for problems but policy hasn't changed in almost 20 years. The only occupation which is restricted from women is submarine duty.
To my knowledge there has only been one CF woman killed in front line duty in recent history. No one has been captured and overall, women have not been an issue with the CFs.
Hi MotorOil1,
I also wanted to say... I must compliment your country and armed forces on the fair and equitable treatment of Canadian females in the military.
Your Navy is the only one I know of who have female submariners working side by side with male submariners serving onboard submarines.
TIGERESS
-
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.
-
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
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Yup
We are utter failures at sperm donating hahahahaha :rofl
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:)
-
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.
-
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 (http://)
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
-
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.
-
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 (http://)
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
-
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
-
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 :rofl :aok
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.
-
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 :rofl :aok
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
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Have it your way Jackal... consider yourself reported.
TIGERESS
:rofl
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by 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
Lazs,
Thanks for your post. Means a lot to me...
Nothing you have ever said to me hurt me or made me cry... unlike some other people.
I do listen to what you say and think about it... and we often agree and sometimes disagree.
Perhaps I do have men on a pedestal and expect them to rise above their base instincts.
Some will and some won't as has been in my experience with men.
I have no way of knowing what makes men tick.
All I can really go on is their behaviors and conversations about their behaviors... good and bad and in between.
I don't buy self-help books. I did buy Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus long ago.
That particular book was a Godsend in trying to figure out the reasons why men behave in the ways they do.
I am sure I have discussed and thought about men more than any other single subject in my life outside of my work.
It's a fine line to walk talking with a variety of men on this subject.
My women friends have been reading the thread here and we discuss it.
I consider people based on their behavior towards me and others.
I have never considered you a bad guy.
I Promise.
TIGERESS
-
Pretty much way off topic here, but this made me think of you Tigress ;)
Cheeky monkey. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f662c8df87)
No idea which sex, but absolutely awesome jungle fighters. :lol
-
tigress... I have at times tried to figure out what women think but have long ago learned that it is just an academic thing.. it serves no real purpose. they are what they are.. just as we are what we are.
Men understand each other.. you need to know that. women somehow think that they are "insightful" and "empathic" when they understand other women.. they somehow think this "talent" is transferable.. that it somehow means that they understand "people"... including men.
Women see in men only what men allow them to see and it is not what other men see. Just as.. women allow men to see only so much of what is... a woman.
There is nothing wrong with this of course...it is perfectly natural. What is unnatural is when either sex.. but mostly women.. try to overcome this nature.
It always backfires... mother nature can't be fooled... just like you can't do anything about the weather... and shouldn't try.. you can't do anything about the differences between men and women and.... shouldn't try.
We need to respect each other and aknowlege the differences.. even celebrate them.. they are good and they are natural.
I am sure you have seen the men who flirt and are popular in the womens circles and such.. It always turns out that they get into a lot of trouble or.. turns out.. they are gay.
Treating women and men as equals is playing with fire and unnatural. Forcing them together in tense situations... hell.. even office situations and expecting to not have problems... from minor hurt feelings to major assaults... is ludicrous.
I am respectful of women but avoid working with them as much as possible. If I were given a female partner in a dangerous job I would quit.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Pretty much way off topic here, but this made me think of you Tigress ;)
Cheeky monkey. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f662c8df87)
No idea which sex, but absolutely awesome jungle fighters. :lol
That was VERY cute, Bluedog! :rofl Cheered me up a little.
…Amazing video. I think the tigers were sibling babies.
The skill, confidence, and mischievous frolicking of that monkey is amazing!!!
And I got the point ;)
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress... I have at times tried to figure out what women think but have long ago learned that it is just an academic thing.. it serves no real purpose. they are what they are.. just as we are what we are.
Men understand each other.. you need to know that. women somehow think that they are "insightful" and "empathic" when they understand other women.. they somehow think this "talent" is transferable.. that it somehow means that they understand "people"... including men.
Women see in men only what men allow them to see and it is not what other men see. Just as.. women allow men to see only so much of what is... a woman.
There is nothing wrong with this of course...it is perfectly natural. What is unnatural is when either sex.. but mostly women.. try to overcome this nature.
It always backfires... mother nature can't be fooled... just like you can't do anything about the weather... and shouldn't try.. you can't do anything about the differences between men and women and.... shouldn't try.
We need to respect each other and aknowlege the differences.. even celebrate them.. they are good and they are natural.
I am sure you have seen the men who flirt and are popular in the womens circles and such.. It always turns out that they get into a lot of trouble or.. turns out.. they are gay.
Treating women and men as equals is playing with fire and unnatural. Forcing them together in tense situations... hell.. even office situations and expecting to not have problems... from minor hurt feelings to major assaults... is ludicrous.
I am respectful of women but avoid working with them as much as possible. If I were given a female partner in a dangerous job I would quit.
lazs
I acknowledge your thoughtful post and will re-read it again and think about it.
I have laughingly characterized man as "The Beast" in our previous conversations. For me it's like the moth drawn to the flame as I have said to you before.
I have been "hit on" by men who are strangers and not strangers more times than I could possibly count and I don't take it seriously unless I really know the guy.
I and other women place a huge emphasis on trust; I have to trust "the beast" if I am going to be close to him and build my life with him.
In a dangerous job, each partner of a pair has to trust the other; if you don't trust any woman (or any particular man) with your life then having a partner is pretty much out of the question.
In a marriage sometimes there are life threatening situations.
My ex and I, when we were still married were at a beach in Florida.
Both of us were in the water chest deep within 10 or so feet of each other.
I said something to him while he was at my back. He didn't respond.
I turned around and he was simply gone. In fact the water in that direction was devoid of swimmers. I looked for him and spotted him on the beach along with a lot of other swimmers.
About that time my leg was grazed by a large sand shark. Turned out he had seen it and panicked and scrambled for the beach without saying a word to me leaving me there unaware of what was going on.
I would have given my life to save his and would have never left him unaware in a situation like that.
I never trusted him again after that day.
TIGERESS
-
tigress.. that works both ways. I have always heard from women that they "trusted" me or that they felt "safe" around me but.... it cuts both ways.
When they see the "beast" that is man.. things are never the same. If they beg and whine to hear.. to be "let in" on things in your past that they have heard vaguely about but... you flat know it is not something you should tell em...
If you break down and treat em like an equal or let em in or let em really see... they never look at you the same... you are really a monster... they just never knew it.. they will never understand what the monster really is either.
Smart women don't ask and when they see it.. they try to forget it.
but... it is nothing more than your example.. you thought you knew someone close to you ... that you "understood" his maleness.. you didn't.. just like some who think they know me don't.. still.. men do understand.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. that works both ways. I have always heard from women that they "trusted" me or that they felt "safe" around me but.... it cuts both ways.
When they see the "beast" that is man.. things are never the same. If they beg and whine to hear.. to be "let in" on things in your past that they have heard vaguely about but... you flat know it is not something you should tell em...
If you break down and treat em like an equal or let em in or let em really see... they never look at you the same... you are really a monster... they just never knew it.. they will never understand what the monster really is either.
Smart women don't ask and when they see it.. they try to forget it.
but... it is nothing more than your example.. you thought you knew someone close to you ... that you "understood" his maleness.. you didn't.. just like some who think they know me don't.. still.. men do understand.
lazs
I have to believe that men are human, and that I am also human, Lazs.
…different in ways that our gender diverges; the same in ways that our humanity parallels.
You have told me before that I can't really trust any man to contain his base instincts... no man.
Yet… if I can't trust any man, even one who loves me, what's the point of having a life together or even living?
That's why I cling to hope, Lazs... hope that men really are human.
I admit... I have been doing a lot of crying this morning...
TIGERESS
Edit: John9001 said something on this thread that has been stuck in my mind ever since he wrote it. Something along the lines of "you want to be equal but special."
From his perspective I guess that is right.
I can never be like a man; imo, no woman, ever, can do that and few would want to.
What frustrates me is when I see guys say, but you want to be equal.
What they must think of as equals and what I think of as equals are not the same thing.
That is why I keep going back to "humanity." I don't want to be treated like as a guy by a guy if that is his meaning of equal. I am not his "bud" but I can be friends and a co-worker or a lover.
I have an intellect and have done many things in my life, none of which diminished my femininity in my eyes... the accomplishments, in my mind simply pushed the frontiers of what a "woman" can do, not what a woman who is trying to be like a man can do.
Women like me are stretching the scope of what a woman is able to do as a woman as we go, in this life.
Why oh why does this appear to be taken as some sort of a threat to them by so many men? How does my accomplishments and those of other women have to have anything to do with men's own self-definition and definition of us as women? I am seriously not trying to be a man whatsoever! I am not trying to redefine men as "less than" or even "equal to" a woman.
Maybe this is all about male ego... maybe you or other men here can help me to try to grasp what is going on here.
I have heroes like Lt. Lilya Litvak - The "White Rose" of Stalingrad and Danica Patrick and women who fly in combat and the women who were Heroes of the Soviet Union.
No wonder I am offended when people trash that... and trash me for pointing these accomplishments out and being proud of them or wanting to be like them and trying to promote women who choose to be in combat zones. Bully for them I say; I wouldn't want to go to Iraq.
Lt. Lilya Litvak was essentially assassinated by 8 men in a coordinated mission designed solely to kill her for making them look like a bunch of beginners getting shot down to the point of her becoming a WWII Ace at their expense because she was a woman and Jewish to boot.
Society is what it is... some people get it; some don't. I am seeing that many men are not getting it at all. There is a serious disconnect.
I don't know if I am ever going to be able to articulate this well enough for men I have a disconnect with on this to understand and that is maddening in the extreme.
I am sure they are terminally frustrated by me as well... I am sorry. I am not trying to frustrate you, promise.
-
How about we just drop the term "equal" altogether?
That seems to be the sticking point.
How about we all just strive to "be all that we can be" as individuals without the gender contest?
Is that possible?
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I have to believe that men are human, and that I am also human, Lazs.
…different in ways that our gender diverges; the same in ways that our humanity parallels.
You have told me before that I can't really trust any man to contain his base instincts... no man.
Yet… if I can't trust any man, even one who loves me, what's the point of having a life together or even living?
That's why I cling to hope, Lazs... hope that men really are human.
There are two things that I truly desire in life. The first is to fly, and the second is a marriage with a good, kind, and beautiful woman. I have entirely given up the second. Quite aside from the fact that even were I so lucky, I could not treat her nearly as well as she'd deserve, I am convinced that the woman of my dreams does not and cannot exist.
The fact is that even were I happily married for thirty years, if I suddenly found that my wife had slept with another man, I would of course be devestated but by no means surprised. Such actions, I've found, are entirely consistent with human nature. Behavior is determined by genetics, upbringing, and circumstances. In this unhappy universe, you can never be sure that the person you think you trust won't hurt you. On the contrary, people can be trusted to let you down. Sometimes it's in little ways. Sometimes it's in a big way.
The problem is that human isn't enough. What's the point of having a life together or even living? That's what I've been wondering for years.
-
Im active duty Navy. From what Ive seen females in the Navy are nothing but trouble. Yes theres a good deal of them who work alot harder then their male counterparts. But for the most part all the females I have worked with use their gender to either not do work or to escape their responsibilities. Theres a few in my shop currently who do not go out on the flight line at night because they complain it is to cold. Theres also a large problem with Navy females becoming pregnant right before their shore duty is up and they are supposed to be moved to sea duty. Some females in my squadron (shore duty) have served around 8 years and have never left stateside because they purposely get pregnant. Its not uncommon to see these females with 4 or 5 children. This also means they receive a great deal of money from the government to do nothing. Ive never served in a combat yet so I cannot comment on that aspect. From a shore duty perspective stateside Id be afraid to see the problems there.
-
Originally posted by BlueJ1
This also means they receive a great deal of money from the government to do nothing.
Things have changed since I retired from the USAF in '95. No one active duty received a great deal of money back then.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Things have changed since I retired from the USAF in '95. No one active duty received a great deal of money back then.
E-3 pay. about $1500.
BAS- about $300.
BAH- Do not know exact amounts, but close to $2,000 for housing. 2 kids about another $2,000 I believe.
Single E-3 like myself makes peanuts after all the deductions.
-
Got a $167 a month when I went in. Went up to 225 or so when I got married. Maybe that was where that first marriage went wrong.
-
tigress.. you can't really drop the term "equal" if you want everyone to "be all they can be" because... If you lower standards so that some can "be all they can be" they really aren't being all they can be.. it is an artificial construct..
more artificial than your "social constructs" if you leave out strength and temperment (not all men are suited to all jobs) then you leave out any fairness.
By your reasoning.. why not lower the standards for engineers to let the retarded in?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. you can't really drop the term "equal" if you want everyone to "be all they can be" because... If you lower standards so that some can "be all they can be" they really aren't being all they can be.. it is an artificial construct..
more artificial than your "social constructs" if you leave out strength and temperment (not all men are suited to all jobs) then you leave out any fairness.
By your reasoning.. why not lower the standards for engineers to let the retarded in?
lazs
There are retards who are passed along and get a degree that isn't worth the paper its written on... it soooo happens.
But, like the military, corporate american is not in the business of carrying deadwood. They dont last long. I have dealt with a few of them.
The worst ones are the loafer academic types who are smart and very capable yet think they are above the system and just do what they want when they want to amuse and please themselves. These people havent a clue of what is really going on... very self-serving and self-distructive in the end.
Same thing with worthless people working the system in the military... can't fool all the people all the time... sooner or later they get their walking papers.
TIGERESS
-
Of course corporate America carries deadwood.. and lot's of it.. it is called affirmative action and the group who has scammed it the most is women.
If standards make sense then lowering them makes no sense. It only hurts everyone but a few.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
There are retards who are passed along and get a degree that isn't worth the paper its written ... it soooo happens.
I see you have met my niece's son. :D
-
Originally posted by BlueJ1
Im active duty Navy. From what Ive seen females in the Navy are nothing but trouble. Yes theres a good deal of them who work alot harder then their male counterparts. But for the most part all the females I have worked with use their gender to either not do work or to escape their responsibilities. Theres a few in my shop currently who do not go out on the flight line at night because they complain it is to cold. Theres also a large problem with Navy females becoming pregnant right before their shore duty is up and they are supposed to be moved to sea duty. Some females in my squadron (shore duty) have served around 8 years and have never left stateside because they purposely get pregnant. Its not uncommon to see these females with 4 or 5 children. This also means they receive a great deal of money from the government to do nothing. Ive never served in a combat yet so I cannot comment on that aspect. From a shore duty perspective stateside Id be afraid to see the problems there.
Hi BlueJ,
Thank you for your service.
I would not dream of defending anyone, male of female, who milk the system and don't do the job they were hired to do and don't pull their weight like their workmates do.
I learned not to judge an entire gender based on the behavior of the deadwood such as the particular women you are speaking of.
Those people who are not there to do the job and serve their country need to be weeded out and will no doubt be weeded out.
Judging 3 billion people on the behavior of some has a lot of downside to it, regardless of whether that 3 billion people are male 3 billion or female 3 billion.
In view of recent behavior, I resist making a blanket judgment of all on the action of a few or one. I know better than that.
Throwing out all women from the military would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Yes, you would get rid of the female deadwood along with seriously dedicated and extremely talented people who are doing their utmost for their country.
Every time one gender points a finger at the other gender and dismisses them as an entire group of people, damage is done to both genders.
The military will no doubt find and close loopholes some women are using to milk the system. The sooner bad sailors are gone, the better.
Might I suggest putting on gender filter goggles and try an experiment? Instead of seeing a female sailor or male sailor try seeing a sailor without a detectable gender, then judge that sailor as a sailor. There will always be deadwood that need to be removed or "motivated"... male and female.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Of course corporate America carries deadwood.. and lot's of it.. it is called affirmative action and the group who has scammed it the most is women.
If standards make sense then lowering them makes no sense. It only hurts everyone but a few.
lazs
Trust me when I tell you that the mission of a corporation is to make money and as much money as they can and to deny money to their competitors.
There are lots of similarities there when compared with different government's militaries relative to each other. The corporate wars are what they are...
Yes, the so-called nanny laws you talk about causes some problems for corporations but anyone can get fired regardless of PC. I know minority individuals who are total deadwood and those who are very serious assets; both of which belonging to the same minority group.
Corporate America keeps getting smarter by the day, Lazs.
They now know and "get it" that corporate hiring bias against a race or a gender or a ”this or a that” throws the baby out with the bath water.
Corps figured it out and they can quantify the cost of hiring bias in millions of dollars of lost revenue.
It's a costly business decision to use biased hiring practices. The talent within a minority will just get hired by their competitors otherwise and any deadwood hired can be fired and replaced with new workers.
The idea is to make money... billions and billions and billions... by what ever legal means possible.
They need talented people to do that and to deny that talent to their competitors.
They would hire a 4 headed zombie if that zombie gave them an edge on the goal of making money and denying money from their competitors.
Ever taken a look at the CORP WAR going on between Intel and AMD for the microprocessor market? Books will be written about it.
They are fighting a no holds barred (within legal limits) WAR to the Corporate Death.
Winner takes all.
TIGERESS
-
The U.S. military has much bigger problems at the moment than deadwood trimming.
Cooperate America is in a strangle hold genderwise in terms of legal action. PCness in general.
Putting blinders on concerning the differences in gender as far as combat situations is just that. It shields reality. Reality in combat situations means life or death...........for many of both genders.
Females in the military do some awesome work. We have one right here in our BBS community that I know of. I expect there are quite a few.
They just don`t belong in combat situations unless all other avenues are exhausted. We are far from that and I hope we never reach that point.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. you can't really drop the term "equal" if you want everyone to "be all they can be" because... If you lower standards so that some can "be all they can be" they really aren't being all they can be.. it is an artificial construct..
more artificial than your "social constructs" if you leave out strength and temperment (not all men are suited to all jobs) then you leave out any fairness.
By your reasoning.. why not lower the standards for engineers to let the retarded in?
lazs
Actually, Lazs, I am looking for insight... I am not trying to start anything.
Is it possible that "equal" in the minds of one gender is not the same definition as the definition of "equal" is to the other gender?
For instance...
............................. ............................. .................
"You drive like a girl."
What guy hasn't heard that at some point?
Female race driver wins Indy 500 and sets new Indy 500 speed record; thus by so doing, diminishes and demotes all male drivers worldwide as driving worse than a girl.
This can not be allowed to stand... males loose superiority-based male pride when females win.
No… that can't be allowed to stand... ok, then... She isn't really feminine… instead she is, by virtue of winning the Indy 500, a person who has lost her femininity thus, by so declaring, men are protected from driving worse than a girl.
............................. .........................
Based on behaviors I have seen all my life, there are indications a competitive balance scale exists in the minds of men with women on one side and men on the other side.
If the balance scale tips in a direction, one side wins at the expense of the other side.
In my view, and most other women I know, I don't think like that.
I look to men as partners, not competitors.
"Equal" to me means fairness... equitable-ness.
What does "equal" mean to men?
Does someone? Anyone? Have an answer?
Please please don’t flame me, anyone, for this post and for asking :cry
TIGERESS
-
As a guy, when I think of 'equal' when it comes to this subject what comes to mind is that women receive no special treatment, bonuses or penalties due to their gender.
The problem however, is that every single woman I have met, studied and worked with that push for 'equality' do not expect to give up the privileges they have as females. In fact they get pissed off if you even mention that being 'equal' to men but receiving extra stuff for being female is not being 'equal'.
If a woman wants to be a combat troop I expect 'equal' to mean she has to carry the same weight, run the same distance and have the same treatment as a male. Yes, the expectations are based on MALE performance and its for a reason: men perform better in combat. Its a biological difference and there is no amount of political correctness or whiny activism that will change that. Lowering the standards for combat troops just so women can feel accepted into combat forces only lowers the overall strength of the army itself.
In the modern workplace I see women relying on benefits that our social values grant them to gain an advantage..be it in performance of the job or in securing a better chance to get a raise or be promoted.
...I remember one job I was in, one of our head managers had noticed that a co-worker of mine wasn't courteous to the female staff and because of that she had a negative impression of the man and passed him over for promotion. What was it she noticed? that the guy did not open the door for the ladies, that he did not seem 'polite' and avoided small talk conversation with them, etc. The guy was not rude or anything to the ladies he treated them exactly as he treated me.. yet this social expectation of giving extra to women sunk his chance to be promoted.
...Or the job interviews that result in the hotly dressed blonde getting the position over the avg joe that applied with better resume.
... being a 'minority' with privileges when they make up 50% of the population (huh?).
... 'maternity' parking. Its not a disability, its a privilege.
Silly little stuff but it adds up to a lot.
Try to ask any of your women friends if they would give up all these little things in the name of being 'equal'. I'd bet without thinking most would say 'no' or smirk or give you some body language that the very concept was laughable.
-
Hi Tac,
Thank you for your thoughtout reply.
It is ironic isn't it? 50%-55% of the world population being considered a class in need of protection from discrimination.
We are not a minority in numbers; if anything, males are in a slight minority.
This is a man's world, nevertheless.
Much of what we have gained in the US in the last 87 or so years has happened by the grace of enough men with compassion and sense of right and wrong to overrule the others.
But we had to have enough backbone to hang in there and persist in asking for, and constantly reason for, the gains; using the eye of the public media, lobbying congress, and pleading our case at home with our husbands, in our cities and towns, in state capitols, in Washington DC, and Internationally.
Women were criticized, beaten, arrested, and some sent to prison in an effort to shut them up... even wives of men in high rank in government.
It was a national and international disgrace and reflected very poorly on a so-called democracy and the men who created it and ran it.
The denial of something as fundamental as voting to 50% of the population, among denial of other basic human rights men granted each other in the US Constitution and State and Federal Laws was and is hard to justify in the light of day. It was not right.
We aren't that hard to dominate, Tac, as this thread has recently evidenced.
Words often are more painful than physical blows.
Emotional pain lingers in the heart... sometimes, for a lifetime.
We can inflict that kind of pain as well... men also feel that kind of pain.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Words often are more painful than physical blows.
Emotional pain lingers in the heart...
TIGERESS
Which is a very good reason for women to be excluded from combat Tigeress. Our society values toughness in men, we want our women to be more tender.
-
well said akiron.. not only that but our children need tender moms and tough dads. Males raised by only females have a much harder time fitting in. most gang members were raised by women.
Young men need the mentoring of men.. why do you suppose that is so if everyone is "equal"
and... a generalization like... "you drive like a girl" is fine.. it matters not if once in a coons age a woman driver is almost as good as the men in her field.. it would be the same if an oriental became a famous driver.. the rest of em still suck.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Which is a very good reason for women to be excluded from combat Tigeress. Our society values toughness in men, we want our women to be more tender.
Hi Dear,
There are enough of us around who are that tender... and some who are made of sterner stuff.
I, personally, could never have the heart to leave my children and husband and put my life at risk for personal reasons.
But there are women who want to and who do... it is their basic human right to choose and not have the right to make that decision taken from them.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Hi Dear,
There are enough of us around who are that tender... and some who are made of sterner stuff.
I, personally, could never have the heart to leave my children and husband and put my life at risk for personal reasons.
But there are women who want to and who do... it is their right to choose and not have the right to make that decision taken from them.
TIGERESS
I would agree that they should be allowed but only if they can meet the exact same physical requirements set for males. Anything less is stupid for several reasons which have already been stated.
Having spent 20 years in the Air Force I can say that there really aren't many problems caused by integrating the men and women in most Air Force jobs. I have heard BlueJ1's complaint from several Navy guys though with the most common being that women are tying up the preferred shore duty slots which causes more than a little resentment.
-
ak.. whould that mean to you that they be in the same barracks and the same showers? that really is the only way to make it equal. If we are supposed to ignore the sexual part.. then why not completely?
Heinlein wrestled with this... he liked the concept of men and women being equal and tried to make it work in his stories but... the starship troopers scene with everyone showering together was just plain silly when shown in something other than a printed page concept. Lots of other examples of Heinlein trying to make men and women equal and failing misserably... he just couldn't accept that we are not equal in all things and it diminished his work.
I don't think that you are saying even that seeing a woman wounded or captured would have the same effect on you as a soldier or citizen as a man tho.. and... it shouldn't.. not if we think women should bear and raise children.. not if we think it is an inherrant trait of women to do so.
lazs
-
Well, we are talking about combat jobs. There are a lot of support jobs in the military that do not require a rigorous physical and endurance standard. I think that the few women who could meet combat troop standards would probably have little trouble integrating. And yes, that means no provisions or exceptions. If the women don't want to share a shower or toilet with men then why not create combat units filled exclusively with women?
-
I merely answered the question of what 'equal' means to a guy Tigeress, its got nothing to do with domination or anything :)
I do not believe its still a 'mans world' out there today. If anything, society in the US is a lot more integrated gender-wise than a mere 30+ years ago. Not because some men stood up for women but because women rose to the challenge and succeeded. It is pointless to give women equal rights if they do not walk up to the voting booth or step into the universities to enter the workforce. If you look at Japan for example, their society is almost like the US society was in the 60's and 70's.. women go to college but most graduate in 'home economics' ... very few enter the actual workforce. They're rising to the challenge albeit at a slower pace.
In our society women are entitled to receive special/better treatment than a man would..its just how we are and I do not believe any guy would complain about having to open a door for a lady or that sort of thing. But as any kind of 'privilege', in time it becomes assumed it is a 'right' and ceases to have meaning when it becomes abused.
Extreme examples like these women activists demanding 'equal' opportunity to be a combat troop without considering the consequences this has on the armed forces illustrates how 'privilege' became 'right' and eventually becomes abusive.
-
I'll say it again...
If you were able to, and chose not to serve for no other reason than not wanting to, than STFU. You have no legitimate opinion here, especially telling someone with more heart and courage than yourself who wants to serve their country, that they cant.
I believe women should be held to the same physical standards of men...But maybe instead of calling it the physical standards of "men", maybe should define it was the mininum physical standards of a SOLDIER.
If she can do the job as good, or better than any other soldier, and carries herself as a professional, it's not her problem that a male may be distracted. And if he becomes distracted, than maybe he has forgotten this...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (change a couple words around and you have the Oath for Commissioning).
-
"I believe women should be held to the same physical standards of men...But maybe instead of calling it the physical standards of "men", maybe should define it was the mininum physical standards of a SOLDIER."
which is the core of the problem. The standards of a soldier are the standards based on male performance. Changing the label just to be politically correct is pointless.
I do believe women are equal IN combat jobs as men are that do not require physical performance. Male rifleman is almost guaranteed that he is going to outperform a female rifleman in almost every category. female combat pilots = male combat pilots. Heck there are jobs that women perform better than men .. submariners, mechanized units and officers for example.
The israeli army has a good portion of its female soldiers becoming officers or part of combat units that are not on foot. Support units, mechanized units, air force, etc. However the foot soldier units are still almost exclusively male. Most of their combat foot soldier officers are male. Why? Because the enemy facing them is literally all male and that puts a female at a disadvantage. I dont care how professional she is, if it comes to hand to hand she better be the world's greatest flipped out ninja using chuck norris's testicles to strangle the bad guy 'cause the odds are not in her favor BIOLOGICALLY speaking. If the armies of the world were all male/female integrated then it wouldnt be an issue.. but they arent. And its retarded to risk lives just for the sake of political correctness.
To take an oath of service is not the same as 'ill join only if i can be what i want' . if you want to serve, SERVE where you are best suited for or needed most.
-
This was already the case in the early 90's. When deployed we did use the same showers as men. Same bathrooms too and slept in the same tents or if we're really lucky a building. We also drank the same drinks,ate the same food, wore the same uniform and carried the same weapon.
Not sure what any of this has to do with someone being able to perform their job though.
If you can't stand up to the job physically or mentally you shouldn't be there.
Originally posted by lazs2
ak.. whould that mean to you that they be in the same barracks and the same showers? that really is the only way to make it equal. If we are supposed to ignore the sexual part.. then why not completely?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Heinlein wrestled with this... he liked the concept of men and women being equal and tried to make it work in his stories but... the starship troopers scene with everyone showering together was just plain silly when shown in something other than a printed page concept. Lots of other examples of Heinlein trying to make men and women equal and failing misserably... he just couldn't accept that we are not equal in all things and it diminished his work.
You're slightly confused here. Heinlein was not involved with the movie called Starship Troopers, and that movie was not really based on his book. Heinlein's book Starship Troopers had no such shower scene. In fact, in the book, the ships had sex-segregated quarters; men were not allowed past a certain bulkhead.
In the book Starship Troopers, the Mobile Infantry were all male (and they wore jump jet-equipped powered armor, something inexplicably missing in the movie). The women were pilots and ship crew. You really should read the book; it's quite different from the movie. I recommend it highly, and so does the U.S. military.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I'll say it again...
If you were able to, and chose not to serve for no other reason than not wanting to, than STFU. You have no legitimate opinion here, especially telling someone with more heart and courage than yourself who wants to serve their country, that they cant.
You donned a uniform to protect the people's right to free speech among other things did you not?
No one is telling anyone they can or can't do anything, it is a discussion, people are offering their thoughts on the matter. Nothing more.
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
You donned a uniform to protect the people's right to free speech among other things did you not?
No one is telling anyone they can or can't do anything, it is a discussion, people are offering their thoughts on the matter. Nothing more.
well said.
-
Case in point: Russia during WWII and Israel present day.
Israeli women being allowed/not allowed in combat units is being challenged again. However in 1950 Israel banned women from serving in combat units and for good reason.
Statements made by Moshe Dayan to General Gatsis.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/BG836.cfm
In hearings before the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services in November 1979, Brigadier General Andrew J. Gatsis, USA (retired), testified that Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan told him that during Israel's War of Liberation, "we had a constant fear of what the Arabs would do to our women if they captured them." The men, Dayan told Gatsis, "could not stand the psychological stress" of watching women being killed and captured. Gatsis also said that Dayan "felt that [having women in combat units] knocked down their combat effectiveness."
I've read elsewhere that men can not handle seeing a woman killed in combat and unit cohesion suffered when it happened. The Israeli's learned this lesson once yet it seems at least some of them are bound and determined to learn it again.
From the same article.
Under oath, and perhaps for the first time publicly anywhere, Toffler said just the opposite. Under cross- examination by VMI's attorney, Toffler acknowledged that separate physical requirements indeed exist for men and women at West Point, and that some physical activities for both sexes have been made easier or eliminated so that women would not suffer what Toffler delicately called "adverse impact." ( Ibid., p. 608.)
Toffler's sworn testimony further revealed -- again, probably for the first time -- that according to a West Point survey taken last year, some 50 percent to 68 percent of women cadets reported that they had been sexually harassed; 23 percent reported that someone had come into their room when they were asleep.
Under oath, Toffler also admitted that West Point has identified 120 physical differences between men and women, plus psychological differences. This, testified Toffler, has prompted West Point to make its physical training easier to accommodate women. According to Toffler:
Cadets no longer train in combat boots because women were suffering higher rates of injury; cadets now wear jogging shoes.
Women cadets take "comparable" or "equivalent" training when they cannot meet standards in some events. In practice this means that West Point males must do pull-ups while females merely do "flex-arm hangs."
The famed and valuable "recondo" endurance week during which cadets used to march with full backpacks and undergo other strenuous activities has been eliminated, as have upper-body strength events in the obstacle course.
Running with heavy weapons has been eliminated because it is "unrealistic and therefore unappropriate" to expect women to do it.
Where men and women are required to perform the same exercises, women's scores are adjusted to give them more weight.
Today's West Point males are not increasing their cardio-vascular efficiency as much as their predecessors did because they are insufficiently challenged by physical training standards geared to include women.
In load-bearing tasks (carrying and lifting), 50 percent of the women score below the bottom 5 percent of the men.
Peer ratings have been eliminated because women were scoring too low.
Fraternization between the sexes is occurring on campus. Said Toffler under oath: "I think it would be fair to say that certain forms of sexual activity can have a place on the grounds at the Military Academy." ( Ibid., p. 585-586.)
The cadet honor system has been weakened by making breaches of the code no longer grounds for expulsion in most cases.
-
Elfie I would expect severe resentment when women obviously aren't being allowed to fail.
Same kinda crap is happening in our school system. Darn kids.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
But there are women who want to and who do... it is their basic human right to choose and not have the right to make that decision taken from them.
TIGERESS
Up to the point that it compromises everyone and everything around them, including themselves, such as the combat situation.
Common sense has to kick in and be deployed at some point.
Way too much women can do in the military, and do it very well, without going to desperate , last ditch efforts.
-
Originally posted by Tac
I merely answered the question of what 'equal' means to a guy Tigeress, its got nothing to do with domination or anything :)
I do not believe its still a 'mans world' out there today. If anything, society in the US is a lot more integrated gender-wise than a mere 30+ years ago. Not because some men stood up for women but because women rose to the challenge and succeeded. It is pointless to give women equal rights if they do not walk up to the voting booth or step into the universities to enter the workforce. If you look at Japan for example, their society is almost like the US society was in the 60's and 70's.. women go to college but most graduate in 'home economics' ... very few enter the actual workforce. They're rising to the challenge albeit at a slower pace.
In our society women are entitled to receive special/better treatment than a man would..its just how we are and I do not believe any guy would complain about having to open a door for a lady or that sort of thing. But as any kind of 'privilege', in time it becomes assumed it is a 'right' and ceases to have meaning when it becomes abused.
Extreme examples like these women activists demanding 'equal' opportunity to be a combat troop without considering the consequences this has on the armed forces illustrates how 'privilege' became 'right' and eventually becomes abusive.
We will have to agree to disagree. :)
Walk in my shoes... but you can't, no man ever can, no more than I could ever walk in your shoes.
We live in two different parallel realities.
Many more women are envious/jealous of male privilege than men who are envious/jealous of female privilege.
Men are the rulers of our world whether we like that or not. Some of us like it and some of us don't.
Men don't take our name in marriage; we are given theirs.
Mrs. John Jones as a name for a woman is interesting if you really look it it.
No one really cares if a male is a virgin or not; historic attention to the virginity of a female denotes "not previously owned/occupied by another male."
We have always been viewed by the male gender as possessions and historically treated as a possession.
Males discussing whether or not women should be allowed... bespeaks of the control and possessiveness of males relative to females.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
We will have to agree to disagree. :)
Walk in my shoes... but you can't, no man ever can, no more than I could ever walk in your shoes.
We live in two different parallel realities.
Many more women are envious/jealous of male privilege than men who are envious/jealous of female privilege.
Men are the rulers of our world whether we like that or not. Some of us like it and some of us don't.
Men don't take our name in marriage; we are given theirs.
Mrs. John Jones as a name for a woman is interesting if you really look it it.
No one really cares if a male is a virgin or not; historic attention to the virginity of a female denotes "not previously owned/occupied by another male."
We have always been viewed by the male gender as possessions and historically treated as a possession.
Males discussing whether or not women should be allowed... bespeaks of the control and possessiveness of males relative to females.
TIGERESS
Incorrect historically. It was VERY COMMON for the husband to take on the wife's surname in Scotland, up until the 19th Century.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Incorrect historically. It was VERY COMMON for the husband to take on the wife's surname in Scotland, up until the 19th Century.
Interesting, Masher. Didn't know of that exception.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ak.. whould that mean to you that they be in the same barracks and the same showers? that really is the only way to make it equal. If we are supposed to ignore the sexual part.. then why not completely?
Heinlein wrestled with this... he liked the concept of men and women being equal and tried to make it work in his stories but... the starship troopers scene with everyone showering together was just plain silly when shown in something other than a printed page concept. Lots of other examples of Heinlein trying to make men and women equal and failing misserably... he just couldn't accept that we are not equal in all things and it diminished his work.
I don't think that you are saying even that seeing a woman wounded or captured would have the same effect on you as a soldier or citizen as a man tho.. and... it shouldn't.. not if we think women should bear and raise children.. not if we think it is an inherrant trait of women to do so.
lazs
Is it not true that armies have raped and slaughtered females of the enemy for thousands of years?
In view of that, I suspect the issue is not so much seeing a female wounded or killed... its seeing your female wounded or killed, meaning an American female as opposed to say an Iraqi female.
Separation of sleeping/bathing/toilet is necessary as much as possible.
Isn't it true? That men don't want to have the context of females de-feminized or masculinized, in effect de-valued, in their eyes? To remove that social male/female barrier like that would devalue us as females, right?
Isn't it true? That to "allow your" women to fight in combat would diminish separation and worth of your females?
Also, women effectively killing men goes back to the… “You drive like a girl” issue I spoke of earlier.
Women killing men diminishes and demotes all men, in effect. “You fight poorer than a girl.”
That was the reason the Nazi's assassinated the Rose of Stalingrad. The German male pilots could not accept a Jewish female Combat pilot could possibly be better than men... them.
Women are not assigned to the Infantry.
TIGERESS
-
Which gender runs the Armed Forces?
Physical standards are set up by the men in charge.
If you guys want to prevent "your" females from being in the US Armed Forces, using physical standards as a tool is a good way to accomplish that.
If you want females in the US Armed Forces, using physical standards as a tool is a good way to accomplish that.
What are the pros and cons of females serving in the Armed Forces?
Again, we are not assigned to the Infantry, thus considering direct front line combat is not even really on the table at this point.
Females are also nurses and doctors and dentists in addition to being MPs and EMTs and technicians and drivers of ground vehicles and fixed or rotary wing pilots.
TIGERESS
-
thus considering direct front line combat is not even really on the table at this point.
It's bad enough that men are on the front lines of combat. Women don't need to be there also.
Like it or not, there are both psychological and physical differences between men and women. Those differences don't make one sex better than the other, instead they compliment each other.
Physical standards for individuals in front line combat units should be high, the training as rigorous as possible. Anything less would be a disservice to those being sent into combat.
Should women be allowed in the military in support roles, just as they are now? Of course they should. There are many things they can do better than males and vice versa. It's how the good Lord made us. :)
-
benny.. had to look back through heinliens troopers.. you are right.. I am confusing the movie with the book.
Which does bring up the point of TV and movies... it is rife with 90 lb anorexic girls who look like 12 year old boys with boob jobs kicking the crap out of 6 or seven men at a time. I think this has a lot to do with women like tigress thinking that they should "be all that they can be" it is a myth.
If I were a cop or in combat I would not want a woman partner or fellow soldier unless it was the most desperate of circumstances.
lazs
-
"Many more women are envious/jealous of male privilege than men who are envious/jealous of female privilege."
That may be true, however this has been changing dramatically the past 30 or so years. Women of the 60's through the 80's are very different from the current generation in terms of equality. I think that most of this envy is from those who reached adulthood before the late 80's.
"Men are the rulers of our world whether we like that or not. Some of us like it and some of us don't."
That is one argument that always hits me as strange. Men are the rulers of the world. I dare say that yes, men are in the political and economical leadership positions because those are largely hereditary institutions but again, that has been changing a lot since the end of the 20th century. I dont think you would've seen Condolezza Rice or Hillary Clinton type women in high office prior to the 1980's. It is changing and it changes only as the new generations step up to the bat.
"Men don't take our name in marriage; we are given theirs.
Mrs. John Jones as a name for a woman is interesting if you really look it it."
I always thought that was dumb. Personally both sides should keep their names and the children receive the last name of the gender they are born as. Aka if its a daughter then she would have the mother's last name first and the father's last name second.
Methinks they just did the name change thing to make record keeping simpler in pre-computer times. :)
"No one really cares if a male is a virgin or not; historic attention to the virginity of a female denotes "not previously owned/occupied by another male."
Another medieval thing that is mostly going away.
"We have always been viewed by the male gender as possessions and historically treated as a possession."
Historically yes, but not applicable today.
"Males discussing whether or not women should be allowed... bespeaks of the control and possessiveness of males relative to females."
It is the same as why a mother would not hire a man or a teenaged boy to babysit her daughter rather than hiring a woman or a teenaged girl to do so. There are some things where one gender just isnt a good idea to be assigned to a certain job. Babysitting by a man is a danger to the child (if female child) due to the inherent risk ... having a person that cannot carry the same load, has lower upper body strength and lower stamina than her comrades in a life or death situation is simply too much of a risk to both that person and said comrades. It has nothing to do with possessiveness or being de-macho'fied.
"Is it not true that armies have raped and slaughtered females of the enemy for thousands of years?"
Usually after slaughtering the male armies yes. Does the US army do this today is a better question.
"its seeing your female wounded or killed, meaning an American female as opposed to say an Iraqi female."
There are plenty of recorded instances in WW2 where all sides were not keen on shooting female enemy soldiers as they would male enemy soldiers. Vietnam had plenty of those cases as well. Of course seeing one of your female comrades get shot is a lot worse than seeing a female enemy soldier get shot but there is a huge difference between seeing a male enemy soldier get shot or dead than to see a female enemy shot or dead.
"That to "allow your" women to fight in combat would diminish separation and worth of your females?"
Not at all. As I mentioned, im all for women in the front lines if they are in tanks, helicopters or fighter aircraft. On the ground carrying a heavy backpack, rifle and ammo is where I believe they should not be due to their disadvantage.
-
Originally posted by Tac
"Many more women are envious/jealous of male privilege than men who are envious/jealous of female privilege."
That may be true, however this has been changing dramatically the past 30 or so years. Women of the 60's through the 80's are very different from the current generation in terms of equality. I think that most of this envy is from those who reached adulthood before the late 80's.
"Men are the rulers of our world whether we like that or not. Some of us like it and some of us don't."
That is one argument that always hits me as strange. Men are the rulers of the world. I dare say that yes, men are in the political and economical leadership positions because those are largely hereditary institutions but again, that has been changing a lot since the end of the 20th century. I dont think you would've seen Condolezza Rice or Hillary Clinton type women in high office prior to the 1980's. It is changing and it changes only as the new generations step up to the bat.
"Men don't take our name in marriage; we are given theirs.
Mrs. John Jones as a name for a woman is interesting if you really look it it."
I always thought that was dumb. Personally both sides should keep their names and the children receive the last name of the gender they are born as. Aka if its a daughter then she would have the mother's last name first and the father's last name second.
Methinks they just did the name change thing to make record keeping simpler in pre-computer times. :)
"No one really cares if a male is a virgin or not; historic attention to the virginity of a female denotes "not previously owned/occupied by another male."
Another medieval thing that is mostly going away.
"We have always been viewed by the male gender as possessions and historically treated as a possession."
Historically yes, but not applicable today.
"Males discussing whether or not women should be allowed... bespeaks of the control and possessiveness of males relative to females."
It is the same as why a mother would not hire a man or a teenaged boy to babysit her daughter rather than hiring a woman or a teenaged girl to do so. There are some things where one gender just isnt a good idea to be assigned to a certain job. Babysitting by a man is a danger to the child (if female child) due to the inherent risk ... having a person that cannot carry the same load, has lower upper body strength and lower stamina than her comrades in a life or death situation is simply too much of a risk to both that person and said comrades. It has nothing to do with possessiveness or being de-macho'fied.
"Is it not true that armies have raped and slaughtered females of the enemy for thousands of years?"
Usually after slaughtering the male armies yes. Does the US army do this today is a better question.
"its seeing your female wounded or killed, meaning an American female as opposed to say an Iraqi female."
There are plenty of recorded instances in WW2 where all sides were not keen on shooting female enemy soldiers as they would male enemy soldiers. Vietnam had plenty of those cases as well. Of course seeing one of your female comrades get shot is a lot worse than seeing a female enemy soldier get shot but there is a huge difference between seeing a male enemy soldier get shot or dead than to see a female enemy shot or dead.
"That to "allow your" women to fight in combat would diminish separation and worth of your females?"
Not at all. As I mentioned, im all for women in the front lines if they are in tanks, helicopters or fighter aircraft. On the ground carrying a heavy backpack, rifle and ammo is where I believe they should not be due to their disadvantage.
I think your views are in the male minority, Tac, and I have no reason to disbelieve you are earnest.
Fact is… I like men being in charge; I like feeling possessed... being possessed.
I don’t like being controlled though and I avoid guys who are control freaks; can make life hell; been there; done that.
As John9001 said… equal but special.
To me that means not treated as a sub-human and feeling cherished.
I want my guy to feel I need him.
I do need to need him even if I can survive on my own.
I want him to be deserving of my respect because I want to give it to him as the man he is.
I don’t want to compete with his man-ness; I simply want to be able to spread my wings and soar with him.
I feel, without him I have no purpose.
It’s Ok with me if he lets me win or I let him win… I just don’t want to be held back because his ego can’t handle it if I am better at something than he is.
I don’t want or need to be better at something than him… but I want to be all that I can be.
TIGERESS
-
Bold face originally posted by Tac or quotes of Tigeress by Tac
"Many more women are envious/jealous of male privilege than men who are envious/jealous of female privilege."
That may be true, however this has been changing dramatically the past 30 or so years. Women of the 60's through the 80's are very different from the current generation in terms of equality. I think that most of this envy is from those who reached adulthood before the late 80's.
It is true that I reached adulthood prior to the late 80s and it is true that many things have changed legally in the last 87/88 years... changes we, as women, pressed for and persisted in pursuing in the US society... things men relented and yielded on.
Young women of today, no doubt, take for granted much of what has been done to make their life more equitable and fair.
Tac, biology/instinct was the cause of the unfairness. Laws don't change the root causes; male biology and male instincts, etc., and we are geared to respond to it, as maddening as that has been to me at times... I am wired the way I am wired.
As Lazs has pointed out ohhh so many times... once the thin veneer of civilization is shredded, all bets are off and males will resort to primal instincts of survival... women play a big part as a focus point of their instinctually driven behavior.
"Men are the rulers of our world whether we like that or not. Some of us like it and some of us don't."
That is one argument that always hits me as strange. Men are the rulers of the world. I dare say that yes, men are in the political and economical leadership positions because those are largely hereditary institutions but again, that has been changing a lot since the end of the 20th century. I don’t think you would've seen Condolezza Rice or Hillary Clinton type women in high office prior to the 1980's. It is changing and it changes only as the new generations step up to the bat.
There are changes... slowly, it is changing... where it levels out is still going to be a ruling male majority.
Condolezza is an appointee for (in my view) PC reasons as was her black male predecessor. I don't believe for one minute she is not micro-managed and scripted as was Madeline Albright.
I also believe Hillary would not stand a chance of nomination if it were not for the perception and reality of Bill at her side as a two term former US President and husband. She and Bill stand to have a more than fair chance of being elected back into the White House, in my opinion.
"Men don't take our name in marriage; we are given theirs.
Mrs. John Jones as a name for a woman is interesting if you really look it it."
I always thought that was dumb. Personally both sides should keep their names and the children receive the last name of the gender they are born as. Aka if its a daughter then she would have the mother's last name first and the father's last name second.
Methinks they just did the name change thing to make record keeping simpler in pre-computer times. :)
Among the real reasons are... the generation to generation male surname legacy, the historic "ownership and maintenance" of a wife and his children, the social identification of her as "his."
Most young women today still want what we have always wanted and the social customs seems normal and in fact they are. The nuclear family makes for a more stable and stronger society and generally better adjusted children. When I was young there were real reasons most of us were not openly promiscuous.
Not many men would have married a woman who was rumored to be easy for a lot of reasons... I don't see male biology and thinking has changed at all, its just gotten a bit more PC unless pushed to reveal true feelings.
We want security and we ourselves apply pressure on younger women to "keep their knees together" and to educate them as to why that is important. Men will hit most anything but a potential wife is measured by a different metric and we know it… ohhh how we know it.
"No one really cares if a male is a virgin or not; historic attention to the virginity of a female denotes "not previously owned/occupied by another male."
Another medieval thing that is mostly going away.
It is true that it is not the end all be all that it used to be. But I believe men are afraid of other men dabbling where they don't belong. What guy is unaffected when learning his wife "has been bedded by" the pool man? …or a neighbor man?
What man would not cherish and value being the first for a woman?
"We have always been viewed by the male gender as possessions and historically treated as a possession."
Historically yes, but not applicable today.
We will have to part company on this one. Men are possessive in male ways of a woman who is theirs just as we are possessive of him. Male ego plays a big role.
"Males discussing whether or not women should be allowed... bespeaks of the control and possessiveness of males relative to females."
It is the same as why a mother would not hire a man or a teenaged boy to baby sit her daughter rather than hiring a woman or a teenaged girl to do so. There are some things where one gender just isn’t a good idea to be assigned to a certain job. Babysitting by a man is a danger to the child (if female child) due to the inherent risk ... having a person that cannot carry the same load, has lower upper body strength and lower stamina than her comrades in a life or death situation is simply too much of a risk to both that person and said comrades. It has nothing to do with possessiveness or being de-macho'fied.
The fact that men exhibit entitlement and enablement to control females is a bit different than say me choosing a female babysitter over a male babysitter or asking my husband to carry out the trash or shovel out the snow from the driveway.
"Is it not true that armies have raped and slaughtered females of the enemy for thousands of years?"
Usually after slaughtering the male armies yes. Does the US army do this today is a better question.
"Its seeing your female wounded or killed, meaning an American female as opposed to say an Iraqi female."
There are plenty of recorded instances in WW2 where all sides were not keen on shooting female enemy soldiers as they would male enemy soldiers. Vietnam had plenty of those cases as well. Of course seeing one of your female comrades get shot is a lot worse than seeing a female enemy soldier get shot but there is a huge difference between seeing a male enemy soldier get shot or dead than to see a female enemy shot or dead.
In WWII the only female combatants in battle that I am aware of was fighting for the USSR. It is well documented that German soldiers not only did not hesitate to fire on and kill them but also would routinely rape and torture them as a common practice when captured.
Many of the Night Witches committed suicide if shot down and kept a bomblet in their laps to do it with rather than suffer what they knew awaited them at the hands of the German males.
If you need references to this there are plenty available.
"That to "allow your" women to fight in combat would diminish separation and worth of your females?"
Not at all. As I mentioned, im all for women in the front lines if they are in tanks, helicopters or fighter aircraft. On the ground carrying a heavy backpack, rifle and ammo is where I believe they should not be due to their disadvantage.
I know there are men of your opinion that women "should be allowed", within the realities of our pyhsical limitations, but I believe such men are not a majority. It's rooted in an issue of male instinct of needing to protect us.
I like feeling protected, Tac. I have my protectors here... even in this forum and they have acted here on my behalf before. I don't choose to try to stare down a raging out of control male here. I don't opt for that protection unless the situation is extreme and over the top abusive in my view, because I want a free flow of conversation and ideas.
The majority of females are not interested in going to war... I'm not interested in ground combat... flying a war plane? Yes, I am interested in that but I am not so selfish as to choose that over my children and husband... some single women and some married women are more than interested.
Those women deserve to make that decision for themselves... as human beings... within the limitations of their abilities to get the job done.
BTW, there are many women who feel entitled to tell other women what to do too... for their own reasons just as there are women on both sides of the Row v Wade debate.
Personally, I say, and with all due respect, mind your own damn business. Regardless of whether an abortion is moral or not in the eyes of organized religion, every woman owns her own body, the church doesn't own it. If God has a problem with it He will deal with it on Judgement Day. So long as a woman makes in informed decision or not, it is hers and she will have to live with it for the rest of her life. Hopefully she will be informed because it will affect her, regardless of the final decision, for the rest of her life.
Personally, I would not choose to have one... even if raped.
R v W is outside the topic of this thread so lets not go any further here with that one.
TIGERESS
-
tigress.. as you say.. I have pointed out several times that men and women revert to their true nature the minute the thin veneer of civilization is ripped away.
What the hell do you think wars are? what do you think police work is? For that matter.. what do you think living in a barracks is?
Now we can talk "social constructs" all you like but the title of your thread was women in combat. since we both agree that men and women are different and that civilization is a veneer that allows us to hide it... and that once that veneer is stripped away.. all bets are off...
Then you would have to agree that war and physical and emotional stress are not a good place for women.. civilization does not survive the combat zone... geneva convention or no.
if you want to talk about other aspects of society then we can but I can... as I have said before... only take on one or two things at a time.. the mishmash of instinct and nature and social construct that you are mixing all together makes no sense to me. Even holding open the door for women or helping them down from a wagon was done for real reasons.. they are not as strong.. they could be with child etc.
not being in combat does not equate to sitting at the back of the bus.
lazs
-
America being the land of opportunity and liberty and all I believe women should be allowed to compete for whatever job they want, even combat jobs. The standards should be high and no exceptions made for gender. In fact, that should be the case for any and every job. Not necessarily high standards, just no adaptation to accommodate race, gender, or age.
Appropriately high physical standards will exclude most women from combat. To lessen these standards for pc purposes is the epitome of stupid.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. as you say.. I have pointed out several times that men and women revert to their true nature the minute the thin veneer of civilization is ripped away.
What the hell do you think wars are? what do you think police work is? For that matter.. what do you think living in a barracks is?
Now we can talk "social constructs" all you like but the title of your thread was women in combat. since we both agree that men and women are different and that civilization is a veneer that allows us to hide it... and that once that veneer is stripped away.. all bets are off...
Then you would have to agree that war and physical and emotional stress are not a good place for women.. civilization does not survive the combat zone... geneva convention or no.
if you want to talk about other aspects of society then we can but I can... as I have said before... only take on one or two things at a time.. the mishmash of instinct and nature and social construct that you are mixing all together makes no sense to me. Even holding open the door for women or helping them down from a wagon was done for real reasons.. they are not as strong.. they could be with child etc.
not being in combat does not equate to sitting at the back of the bus.
lazs
Actually, I am here on this thread at Bluedog's invitation; it's Bluedog's thread.
Combat is no fit place for anyone... male or female.
My Father suffered what we now know as PTSD which led to his lifelong alcoholism till the day he died, thus we all suffered. I witnessed him crying uncontrollably at certain times thinking how his actions lead to the death of thousands of lives; many of whom were innocent civilians due to old-school iron bomb carpet bombing of the day... and crew members and friends lost to enemy fire beside him... and extreme guilt for having survived when they didn't... turning towards a flak burst against the side of his bomber and witnessing a decapitated body fall to the deck that was, a moment before, manning a waist gun... and extreme guilt for feeling afraid of dying before a mission to the point of shaking uncontrollably and for wanting to go AWOL.
Lazs, I have cried myself to sleep many times over the pain he suffered... it wasn't a movie for us. I still cry about it sometimes.
Very few of his bombing missions were to drop leaflets. I know because his missions are public record at http://www.390th.org
Personally I try to talk other women out of serving in combat zones. The emotional and physical scars I have seen last a lifetime... combat aircraft is a bit more sanitized but still very very real in cost of human lives... some of which are innocent.
The UCMJ, The Uniform Code of Military Justice, is the law within the Military and it's enforcement acts to prevent and punish crime. We are a nation of laws. Crimes against American Servicewomen are not always enforced and that is a sad commentary on the state of affairs... If a few misguided American Servicemen think such crimes are going to send "the split-tails"[sic] home for good, then they need to rethink it.
The issue is the right to make an informed decision.
Want to know why I would choose to go into combat, preferably strapped into an A-10 Warthog? To avenge the Islamic women... and I would sleep well knowing I sent those bastards to Hell knowing at least the bastards I kill can't make their women suffer any longer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5ng8icQ7I4
I swear to God I would if I qualified.
You would not want to witness my fury at being told I can't for no other reason than because I am female.
TIGERESS
-
Conducted a pretty interesting experiment through the holidays.
I have asked every female that I had time or was in the position to about this topic.
Young , old and in the middle. Mom`s nieces, daughters, etc., etc.
Was at a party last night and asked every female there for their opinion on this. About 25 women present.
Guess what? Every one, every single one has said they believe females should not be in combat situations.
Go figure.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Conducted a pretty interesting experiment through the holidays.
I have asked every female that I had time or was in the position to about this topic.
Young , old and in the middle. Mom`s nieces, daughters, etc., etc.
Was at a party last night and asked every female there for their opinion on this. About 25 women present.
Guess what? Every one, every single one has said they believe females should not be in combat situations.
Go figure.
Sorry, off topic. Jackal ~ I was LMAO at your signature.:aok
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Sorry, off topic. Jackal ~ I was LMAO at your signature.:aok
:D
-
tigress... I know that to you it seems unfair that you would not be able to avenge or whatever "just because you are female" the operative words here are "just because" they are a big deal... it is like saying "why can't ray charles drive the bus just because he is blind?" or.. I guess... "dead" would work too..
Point is.. in this case.. it can be a very bad thing for a lot of people just so that a few can get what they want. It makes everyone have to go against their nature so that a few can do something unnatural.
To me.. it is about the same as two gay males adopting. Not really a good idea.
lazs