Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Animal on March 26, 2003, 06:53:41 PM
-
As long as women have enough fire in their heart to want to join any dangerous branch of the military, they should rightly be allowed to do so, or you are denying her the freedom of dying for her own country.
We, as men, should honor them with the dignity of soldiers, as our own ancestors did in The Great Russian Patriotic War, in the North American Civil war, the French Revolution, on Gandhi's War of peace, and countless other times where valor was in need.
These women will face the great dangers that lurk in the insanity of war. We should also make them aware of what war truly is, and that there are places where their gender could make them a target and whether they admit it or not, a weakness. And if they are called to go, they must answer.
-
Only if they're not hot. We should save the hot ones.
-
Man, awesome avatar...
-
Send in the Dixie Chicks...
Thorns
-
Originally posted by Thorns
Send in the Dixie Chicks...
Thorns
LOl right on.
-
Sorry disagree.
If women are going to be part of the war, they need to be behind the action.
Why? What happens if she gets captured?
Lil POW babies are going to come popping out.
When this happens, a whole load of BS is going to happen.
Women behind the front, not in it.
CB
-
Originally posted by Cherlie
Why? What happens if she gets captured?
I'm sure all of the women with the strength, courage, and conviction to serve on the front lines thank you for your concern.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
LOL lev
Cherlie are you familiar with the term freedom and all the implications that come with it?
You obviously are well aware of every single risk if you choose to go fight for your country.
No one needs you to nanny over them.
-
animal... it boils down to this.. We don't need em.. we have plenty of men. women in combat is a huge pain for everyone and for what? we don't need em.. no benifiet for the cost. PC isn't good enough.
I also believe that women doing mens jobs and being treated like men is bad for everyone in the long run.
lazs
-
so who was your mother laz ? you would not been here typing if it wasnt for them. (as we dont need them as you say we dont see them either or feel them :D)
We need womans as long as we can breath :)
-
I do not need nor want my mother, daughter or grandaughter to fight in combat. The same goes for yours or anyone elses...I have no problem with any of them having babies tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Only if they're not hot. We should save the hot ones.
Yea..doent it pain you guys to watch a movie KNOWING that this hottie chick is gonna get wasted? I'm like..such a waste... those genes need to be continued.
-
Originally posted by Cherlie
Sorry disagree.
If women are going to be part of the war, they need to be behind the action.
Why? What happens if she gets captured?
Ask Shoshawna Johnson, 501st Maintenance, US Army, single mother, POW. She was behind the lines.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Only if they're not hot. We should save the hot ones.
If they can meet the same pt standards that infantrymen are required to meet, how hot could they be ?
I have no problems with women holding combat arms MOS as long as they are bodily capable, in other words they would have to meet the same pt standards as the men .
I would also want to stay upwind of them after about the first week in the field .
-
Originally posted by Suave
I would also want to stay upwind of them after about the first week in the field .
lol
-
Israelis had females in combat units. Those units had higher casualty ratings than the other units. Not because the women were any worse soldiers, but because the guys would do stupid things to save wounded or dying girls.
Israeli conclusion is all female units are ok, mixed units are not. But if you go with the all female units -solution, I'm wondering if it doesnt just move the problem to a higher level. "Oh no, the female-company is surrounded, we must save them".
Note that Im not saying that guys just say "screw it" when their buds go down or anything like that. What I'm saying is that the Israeli soldiers would take greater risks to save the girls than they would otherwise.
-
War is the last place we need to maintain "political correctness." Not only should women be denied combat roles, but they shouldn't even be in a combat ZONE. We have one young lady as a POW and another young lady is MIA. And for WHAT? To be "fair?"
We've lowered the performance standards for fire departments, police departments and the military to attempt so-called "gender equality" that we're now willing to put up with sub par police forces, fire departments and Armies.
To be blunt, there are some jobs that are men's jobs- and war is one of them. Call that chauvinistic all you want, but war- or fighting crime or fighting fires, for that matter- is not the place to relax standards in an effort to be "inclusive."
I'm disgusted we're suffering female casualties, whether they volunteered or not. It speaks badly of our ethics and morals.
-
this young lady (19) was reported missing in action after the supply line was attacked.. she's a supply clerk.
(http://www.nick-tucker.com/jessica.jpeg)
IMO women like this don't belong on the front.
My heart goes out to the family, as it does to all other service families.
-
They made the choice to go now they face the consequences, too bad for them, thats reality, your pity and morals arent worth a damn in the grand scheme of things.
Truth is that whenever a country is in REAL threat THEN it is ok to let women take arms? We should not let women fight wars, unless our country is in peril, THEN we can give them sniper rifles and fighter aircraft, to our amazement they excell, but when the war is over, we send them back to the kitchen?
-
to me it isn't a gender thing.
I never believed women only belong in the kitchen.
I spoke about the women atheletes in this valley being able to kick some mens' asses.. no joke.
but it's not because they're 'butch' or weight-lifters... just that they have the mettle that a lot of 'boys' don't have.
so to me it's about sending troops that are prepared.
Last night I was watching a report from the field and how they (rear infantry/supply) came sauntering into Iraq in a lacidasical (sp)manner...
just another example of not being prepared.
then I see that this young lady is captured and I have to think "would I send her to war in good concience?"
same with some of the young men...
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
this young lady (19) was reported missing in action after the supply line was attacked.. she's a supply clerk.
IMO women like this don't belong on the front.
My heart goes out to the family, as it does to all other service families.
There are two women MIA from the 501st Maintenance, presumed dead. After reading of the sexual abuse inflicted on the American woman POW during the Gulf War, I wouldn't want them near the front line.
-
I know.. the other woman has been shown on TV.
my point is that this woman is more child
the other one at least looks like she could carry her own supplies
again, to me it's not a male/female question.. but a question of preparedness and sending appropriately prepared troops into combat
-
Well the problem is if you are in the theatre you can be killed. It doesn't matter if you are in logistics there is still a possibility of being killed in combat.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
to me it isn't a gender thing.
I never believed women only belong in the kitchen.
I'm not saying where women DO belong- I'm saying where they DO NOT belong- and that is in a war zone.
This isn't an "equality" issue, it's an ethics issue. I cannot, in clear conscience, condone our daughters being sacrificed in a war zone halfway around the planet. It's bad enough we send our sons, but our basic instinct as a male human animal is to protect and provide for the females in our care.
Play the "kitchen card" all you want Animal, but it's not about civil rights, it's about moral ethics.
-
yep airhead... I think this is one gender line we shouldn't blur. I also don't agree with wlfgang about him knowing women who can kick mens butt's .... This really never happens... it has been tested time and again and allways with the same results...
All this stuff about women being just as tough as men and TV and movies showing em kicking mens butts is a very bad thing in my opinion... I believe that the current generation shows way too little respect for women as it is.... I believe that all this crap about tough women just gives these little weazels an excuse to abuse women.
some on this board appear to be giving me the ok to knock the crap out of women because, after all... if they want to be... I will not hit a woman except to protect myself or someone else from serious injury or death. Fortunately.... this never/hardly ever happens amungst sane women. There are reasons that this never/hardly ever happens
lazs
-
Moral ethhics ? If by moral ethics you mean gender discrimination in the work place .
It has nothing to do with gender bias irrationalities.. I hope . It's just that humans happen to be, fortunately, a drastically sexually dimorphic animal .
-
Lazs, I'm not saying the typical woman can kick the typical man's butt..
I'm saying the atypical woman (bad bellybutton whatever) can kick the atypical man's (boy/sissy/whaterver) butt
like.. say a local tri-athelete type woman against the book-worm from the city.. wanna' place a bet ? :)
and no, I'm not condoning violence against women.. please.
just comparing different "types" across gender lines.\
I for one, would not want to go to war with a woman on the front... too many complexities
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
I know.. the other woman has been shown on TV.
There is one woman POW and two MIAs. God help all of the POWs and MIAs.
POW - Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson, 30, of Fort Bliss, Texas, 507th Maintenance Company, Fort Bliss, Texas.
MIA - Army Pfc. Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, of Tuba City, Ariz., 507th Maintenance Company, Fort Bliss, Texas.
MIA - Army Pfc. Jessica D. Lynch, 19, of Palestine, W.Va., 507th Maintenance Company, Fort Bliss, Texas.
In my opinion we should not have 19 year-old women anywhere near the front line. I was going to link to another pic of Army Pfc. Jessica D. Lynch but then I realised that it was taken in 2000.
-
God help all of the POWs and MIAs.
couldn't agree more. didn't mean to omit others.. just pointing to an example.
-
I can think of some women that could kick a load of ass, but then they break bottles with their feet and boards with their fists for fun .
The sole reason, I hope, for denying women the honor of killing and dieing on the ground for their country is explained very well in the US Army's physical fittness manual.
Here it is .
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/21-20/Appa.htm#Appa
-
War sucks, but it's sometimes neccesary.
Women have been and will continue to voluntarily go to fight and die for all of our freedoms.
Some of you here at home would easily yank those very freedoms out from under them for their own good.
America land of the free home of the brave, only for some.
Ya tell it to some of these hero's families. I'm sure they will understand where you are coming from. Afterall it would have saved their daughters and wives from dying.
hypocrites.
At least we caught up to Russia 50+ years later in the way of freedom to fly fighters.
lump it.
-
There is no argument that great majority of women (and quite a lot of men) are totallly worthless as soldiers due to specifics of their physique, hormonal balance, gender-related mental and intellectual differences, etc.
Nevertheless, if a particular woman proves her fitness by passing stndard tests that males are supposed to pass and does not require special accomodations, there is no way - compartible with our concepts of "freedom" - to deny her the right/privilege to serve.
miko
-
I came in contact with many girls in Army or Air Force ROTC, and some of them are pretty normal, while others are a bit rough around the edges. Overall I think women fit in the military pretty well.
-
Nevertheless, if a particular woman proves her fitness by passing stndard tests that males are supposed to pass and does not require special accomodations, there is no way - compartible with our concepts of "freedom" - to deny her the right/privilege to serve.
exactly. nothing hypocrytical about that !
-
MIA - Army Pfc. Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, of Tuba City, Ariz., 507th Maintenance Company, Fort Bliss, Texas.
Seen here checking her equipment prior to shipping out with her unit.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/gifs/breaking/0324war-hopi.jpg
-
I couldn't agree with you more. (er both of you.)
Originally posted by Wlfgng
exactly. nothing hypocrytical about that !
-
Hortland has it.
It isn't whether or not they are able to serve, or they should be allowed to serve- it's that men will typically go above and beyond to save a lady.
"blah blah blah" respond with rhetorical BS, it's been proven in combat that men will go to great lengths for the ladies.
This greatly inhibits fighting units, and CAN lead to more lost lives.
Placing women in combat roles on the front lines has proven in the past to lead to more loss of live because the men will do more to save/protect the women than vice versa or in a same sex outfit.
The thing with the Russians 50 years ago is that they were all female and all male squadrons. They weren't mixed like our military is.
-SW
-
Sorry SW, but that excuse is just too similar to the reasoning behind the refusal to intigrate the military back in the 30's and 40's.
"The white troops just don't trust the black troops, how can a man fight with someone he doesn't trust?"
A true statement, but worth changing nonetheless. As is the normal reaction of male soldiers to the female soldiers. They should be treated equally, and never will until they are given equal opportunity to serve.
-
miko... there is no way that having women in the service and especially in combat units does not affect everyone. simply passing the lowered standards that would be required is not enough..
I am saying that they are a huge pain in the butt to accomadate and that they are at the very least... disruptive. I think the jews found out that reality is more important than some PC concept.
further...we don't need em... why complicate things if we don't need to... there is precedent for discrimination in the service much less combat units. Age will keep you out regardless of ability.
There are some jobs that women do not belong in. If they force their way in it allways lowers the standards and effieciency and... in most cases, risks lives needlessly. That is the down side. I see no up side.
seriously folks... men and women are different. Most men and women accept that and want it that way. A combat unit with women in it is a less capable unit. Lives are at stake here.
and wlfgang... I don't know if there are women that can kick some sissies butt.. I don't find that any more acceptable than me hitting women tho... I can't walk on broken glass and I can't break boards (i don't think) with my hands but I can sure as hell break those women with my bare hands. I don't care what any of the PC types say... or even our libertarian friend... This is not a matter of personal freedom or "equality" or feminism... this has to do with basic morals and genetics. I think the world would be la worse place with women combat soldiers.
lazs
-
This isn't integrating races here MT, this is integrating sexes.
Whether it's the 1st century, 20th century or 800000th century- basic animal instincts will always be with us, and that is the natural drive of the male to protect the female.
This has been proven in combat.
While the reason you left for the black/white integration is nonsense. In fact it was because the white guys hated the black guys, and people in the upper brass realised this would probably lead to the black guys getting shot in the back and/or the war not being fought against the enemy but amongst themselves.
-SW
-
Replace "trust" with "hate" if you wish. The meaning is similar enough to make the point... which you seem to have missed.
-
AKS\/\/ulfe: "blah blah blah" respond with rhetorical BS, it's been proven in combat that men will go to great lengths for the ladies.
In some cultures people so greately care about preventing unfaithfullness of wives - with ensuing commotion, hoslility, waste of resources and even loss of life - that they routinely perform clitorectomy on little girls which makes them unable to enjoy sex and have a motivation for extramarital affairs.
Everything that was ever done by anyone can be rationalised. But there are things that are incompatible with our culture that were considered worthy of some "loss of life".
Besides, a soldier who gets himself killed for no good reason is a failure of his instructors.
And of course there are quite real reasons besides the imaginary willingness of males ito rrationally "risk their lifes for females" that account for greater losses in mixed units. The majority of currently serving females have no business being in the military and got there only because the standards for them were drastically lowered - perverting the principles of equality and interests of the service.
When you have soldeirs who are not fit, you always risk the whole unit - whether the weaklings are males or females.
Lasz - I am sure with real standards there would not be many women in the service. But those would not cause the loss of efficiency that you attribute to gender rather than the double standards. In fact any such perceived loss would be amply compensated by personal qualities of such outstanding women that managed to pass the muster.
When you deal with such small samples, the statistics becomes unapplicable and personal qualities make all teh difference.
miko
-
I didn't think you would post this..I knew you realized it but didn't think you'd post it.
Knowing it and watching what these people have to say is more telling when they don't know what we're looking at in them.
I'm sure some will discount it and go on, however, so the game continues.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry SW, but that excuse is just too similar to the reasoning behind the refusal to intigrate the military back in the 30's and 40's.
"The white troops just don't trust the black troops, how can a man fight with someone he doesn't trust?"
A true statement, but worth changing nonetheless. As is the normal reaction of male soldiers to the female soldiers. They should be treated equally, and never will until they are given equal opportunity to serve.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
I didn't think you would post this..I knew you realized it but didn't think you'd post it.
Knowing it and watching what these people have to say is more telling when they don't know what we're looking at in them.
I'm sure some will discount it and go on, however, so the game continues.
LOL... you expected me to keep quiet?
-
miko... we have to deal with reality... in the U.S. wherever women are allowed in dangerous positions it causes the standards to be lowered. That is the reality. I am dealing with that. Your theory sounds good about "freedom" but the reality is that gender squews the equation every time.. I personaly believe that's how it should be.
lazs
-
Can't replace trust with hate, as lack of trust just means "I don't want that guy in my foxhole." Hatred means, "I'm gonna lynch that Golly-geen ****** at nightfall."
That's just how it was in the 30s and 40s- btw, integration didn't occur until the Korean war. WWII was high segegrated, only after individual combat units proved their worth did it become mutually accepted by both sides that regardless of color they fight just as hard and are as good to cover your back. I never said women wouldn't be able to do the same thing, the problem is with the men being overly protective of the women.
You simply can not draw parallels between sexes and races.
The illusional differences in races present in the minds of whites during those early years have proven to be nonexistant.
The differences between males and females, well- to this day the majority of it has held true.
Women who got to their position by overcoming the same trials and tribulations as their male counterparts are very much competent in their job. The problem comes into play with the men, something that most are ignoring here.
Segregated racial combat units proved their worth and gained mutual respect. *A* man would give his life for his buddy/buddies in the trench regardless of race.
In the case of women, *MANY* men have given their lives for *A* woman.
Miko- I'm talking about THIS society, and men will almost always go out of their way to protect women. You just can't overcome billions of years of natural instincts.
-SW
-
LOL ya, and you did after the college entrance debate when the last women's suffrage thing came up, although I was pretty sure the similarity was blindingly apparent then..
now look what you've done ;)
Originally posted by midnight Target
LOL... you expected me to keep quiet?
-
but we shall. :)
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You just can't overcome billions of years of natural instincts.
-SW
-
As a guy- you deck a women in a bar and your gonna have a whole lot of pissed off dudes on your ass.
As a guy, you deck another guy- it'll either be broken up or you'll get your bellybutton kicked by him and his buddies, but that's where it will end.
Try as you might, you can't erase instincts.
To this day, we still have wars based on territory or greed.
People still fight for stupid reasons, and lose all rational thought in the process.
-SW
-
way back in the day...in a bar, if a black man walked in, he'd have a bunch of guys pissed off at him too...
hindsight is 20/20, I'm sure no one ever thought there would be racially equality for whatever reasons until it happened and now we know how wrong things were in the first place, it's taken for granted.
funny looking back on things and you will see how monumental some changes were at the time they occured.
that's the thing about history, we look at it from today's perspective and don't truely get it.
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
As a guy- you deck a women in a bar and your gonna have a whole lot of pissed off dudes on your ass.
As a guy, you deck another guy- it'll either be broken up or you'll get your bellybutton kicked by him and his buddies, but that's where it will end.
Try as you might, you can't erase instincts.
To this day, we still have wars based on territory or greed.
People still fight for stupid reasons, and lose all rational thought in the process.
-SW
-
Why do people ignore the history of the Israeli Army in regards to having *coed* combat units? I didn't know about those *coed* units having higher casualty rates, but I did know about unit cohesion breaking down when women became casualties. Men can't handle seeing a woman killed.
Other countries have tryed this, it does not work. Why do we need to try this? To prove that History was correct? Or just so that we can be viewed as Politically Correct?
Some women are most certainly qualified to be in combat units, but we have more than enough men to fill those positions.
Elfie
Armageddon Pile-it
HiTech give us Napalm
-
lazs2: miko... we have to deal with reality... Your theory sounds good about "freedom" but the reality is that gender squews the equation every time.. I personaly believe that's how it should be.
True - but it is better to have an arrangement where nature assures what "should be" rather than to have an arbitrary restriction to counteract another arbitrary perversity.
Sometimes (often, IMO) it makes sense to fix the cause rather than try to ameliorate the symptoms - even if it takes more effort.
A movement for "more humane treatment of slaves" would have been much less painfull and easily accepted than an outright ban on slavery.
But there is no doubt the roots had to be fixed there, not the consequences.
miko
-
Ah, whatever.
Race and sex are two entirely different deals.
Kanth, you load yourself up on testosterone for 2 years...
MT, you load yourself up on estrogen for 2 years.
We'll see how similiar you behave in 2 years. (And yes, estrogen/testosterone DO have mental effects at many different levels)
Men will always protect women, this is a natural instinct- you see it all the time in the animal world.
Racial discrimination was a process that was inflicted on us by previous generations. This can not be seen in the animal world- A red shar-pei will get a long with a black/fawn/whatever shar-pei just the same. A domesticated short hair house cat will get along just fine with a domesticated long hair house cat. I could keep going on, but I think you get the idea.
I know what I say won't change your mind, and vice versa... but I can't elaborate on this any further if it can't already be seen.
You are forcing the similiarities of race/gender. They aren't similiar in any sense. One is by nature, the other was taught.
Now I must go beat a lady on the head and drag her back to my cave, then go hunting while she cleans the kitchen and makes mashed taters.
-SW
-
race is not gender. sorry mt... race doesn't enter into every aspect of life. for most of us anyway..
truth is...the vast majority of women don't want the "opportunity" to fight in combat units. I sure bet kanth isn't gonna be thanked as a pioneer if they were suddenly subjected to the draft and put into combat because of her efforts..
Let's make it real simple... wulfie hit on it... do any of you think that it is a fitting goal that men and women be treated equally so far as violence is concerned? Should men, in the interest of equality, be able to punch out women who verbally abuse, get into their face or.... literaly strike them?
Is this the goal that we should be so enlightened about that we reverse thousands of years of nature? Will the results be what we want?
lazs
-
Here a little example from my home, we have 4 cats.
I have one male one female. If one of the other cats would attack one of mine or make any move of aggression he/she would be facing two pissed off cats together shoulder to shoulder and have to deal with them.
the female does not hide and cower behind the male hoping that he will protect her, they both have claws even though her brother does outweigh her by a good 10lbs, she is very close to the other two cats weights and can take care of herself just fine.
some more information, altho my male is large he cannot see very well, she can see fine, he has good judgement for blocking, she is lightening fast..they are complementory and an outstanding team.
they both have something valueable to give in their own defense and there is no law in their specie that disallows the female from self preservation and so they are stronger because of it.
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Racial discrimination was a process that was inflicted on us by previous generations.
This can not be seen in the animal world- A red shar-pei will get a long with a black/fawn/whatever shar-pei just the same. A domesticated short hair house cat will get along just fine with a domesticated long hair house cat. I could keep going on, but I think you get the idea.
-SW
-
AKS\/\/ulfe: Race and sex are two entirely different deals.
Men will always protect women, this is a natural instinct
...
Racial discrimination was a process that was inflicted on us by previous generations.
Technical correction - apprehension of strangers that are different is also a natural instinct. May be not as strong and easier to neutralise but as based in our genes as anynother.
This can not be seen in the animal world- A red shar-pei will get a long with a black/fawn/whatever shar-pei just the same.
I cant' believe you do not know the dogs do not have color vision!
miko
-
This isn't a truth anymore than you don't want the opportunity to be rich is.
Originally posted by lazs2
truth is...the vast majority of women don't want the "opportunity" to fight in combat units.
lazs
-
I do know dogs do not have color vision, they can still detect tone though.
Lighter green= different color, I can't believe you didn't know that.
And that's why I threw cats in there, they can see color. Albeit very fuzzy at distances, it's crystal clear up close.
Kanth- And there lies the difference, cats don't have guns or grenades. If the male cat could think, and the other cat has a gun... he will push the female cat out of the way and fight. It happens ALL the time with humans.
A man in any species will come to the aid of his lady. In humans, we can think and men are naturally more protective of all women because of this.
I'm not saying women are weaker in their job position, so long as they went through the same trials and tribulations as a man.
I *AM* saying men are naturally protective of women, and in the past this HAS led to more deaths in combat units.
-SW
-
AKS\/\/ulfe: I *AM* saying men are naturally protective of women, and in the past this HAS led to more deaths in combat units.
Maybe they are not protective enough of their male mates?
miko
-
okay you came back to post and yet you brought no taters to share with the class.
because something happens all of the time (for example murders, rapes, the killing of children and pets) doesn't make it acceptable.
cats don't have guns or grenades (weapons also known as equalizers)
I can guarentee you that if the female cat had a grenade launcher, the male cat wouldn't be pushing her anywhere.
cats aren't stupid.
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I do know dogs do not have color vision, they can still detect tone though.
Lighter green= different color, I can't believe you didn't know that.
And that's why I threw cats in there, they can see color. Albeit very fuzzy at distances, it's crystal clear up close.
Kanth- And there lies the difference, cats don't have guns or grenades. If the male cat could think, and the other cat has a gun... he will push the female cat out of the way and fight. It happens ALL the time with humans.
A man in any species will come to the aid of his lady. In humans, we can think and men are naturally more protective of all women because of this.
I'm not saying women are weaker in their job position, so long as they went through the same trials and tribulations as a man.
I *AM* saying men are naturally protective of women, and in the past this HAS led to more deaths in combat units.
-SW
-
That's not the point, the point is the female cat was in a dire situation.
I came back because you argued something different that I wanted to clear up.
Short of brainwashing men, you can't deny them their instincts to go to the aid of a woman in a dire situation.
This is how it is, and is not comparable to any of this: "for example murders, rapes, the killing of children and pets"
As for Miko- No, that's not the point. The point is the man(or men) will come to the womans aid, many times despite their better judgement.
-SW
-
Just as women will come to men's aid, just as it should be.
just as a sniper will wound one man and when the next goes to save him, he will wound that one as well and so on...
saving lives isn't a gender based instinct.
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
That's not the point, the point is the female cat was in a dire situation.
I came back because you argued something different that I wanted to clear up.
Short of brainwashing men, you can't deny them their instincts to go to the aid of a woman in a dire situation.
This is how it is, and is not comparable to any of this: "for example murders, rapes, the killing of children and pets"
As for Miko- No, that's not the point. The point is the man(or men) will come to the womans aid, many times despite their better judgement.
-SW
-
It isn't- but a man tends to put rationality behind him when a woman is in a dire situation.
I'm done for real this time, I have to go cook my hunted food (pre-packed steaks from the grocery store... damn! I'm a good hunter).
-SW
-
cats??? what the fu...? first it's blacks now it's friggin cats??
gender is not race and it sure as hell ain't species.
kanth... where do you want this to go? Do you feel that violence against women should be treated exactly as it is against men? Do you feel that women should enjoy no special place in society so far as violence is concerned? Do you feel that true equality will never be achieved so long as women aren't commiting as many violent crimes as men? Maybe if we just gave all women daily testosterone injections it would make things fair and equal? Perhaps our science can overcome genetics? Hell, things have been this way for tens of thousands of years it must be time for science or ideolodgy to step in eh?
guys... it don't work.. women in combat is not a good idea.. It never was a good idea and it is not even that great an idea for a last ditch effort.... Please don't give me soviet army examples... I would never want us to immulate WWII soviet military for many reasons... not the least being women in combat...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
kanth... where do you want this to go?
it's just discussion lazs, it will go where it will regardless of my wants.
Do you feel that violence against women should be treated exactly as it is against men?
Yep
Do you feel that women should enjoy no special place in society so far as violence is concerned?
Yep
Do you feel that true equality will never be achieved so long as women aren't commiting as many violent crimes as men?
equality isn't truer if you name it "True equality" , it either is or it isn't. If women committed the same number of violent crimes as men there would be an equal amount of violent crimes commited by both genders. Not hard to understand.
Maybe if we just gave all women daily testosterone injections it would make things fair and equal?
Women already have varying amounts of testosterone in their bodys just as men have estrogen. (that's gotta have you up a tree)
[/b]
Perhaps our science can overcome genetics? Hell, things have been this way for tens of thousands of years it must be time for science or ideolodgy to step in eh?
guys... it don't work.. women in combat is not a good idea.. It never was a good idea and it is not even that great an idea for a last ditch effort.... Please don't give me soviet army examples... I would never want us to immulate WWII soviet military for many reasons... not the least being women in combat...
lazs [/B]
The fact is, in the modern military, women can do the same jobs as men as well and better and because of that fact, they should be doing the job, for no other reason.
The best should be representing and fighting for our country no matter the gender, with no artificial limitations in place.
Stating that something has always been a certain way is always the weak argument when you cannot justify why it should currently be that way. It's an old man's argument in viewing the future, in some cases it is correct, in some cases it's tragic.
-
I agree with lazs on this one, here is an example.
A few years ago I was dating this girl, at the time she just received her black belt in karate took her about 7 years. We were joking and she was saying that she could take me in a fight and that she had much more self confindence to stand up for herself in a fight or rape etc.
I told her if she should always run and scream to get away. This debate went on for a few minutes so she ask for me to attack her and get her to the point to where she couldn't fight back.
I ask her if she was ready (she got into her stance) and basically subdued her in about 10 seconds (had her face down in the living room with a choke hold).
Now I will tell you about me I am 5'10" 175lbs which was only about 50 lbs more than her. I have never taken karate, wrestling etc. And I hadn't worked out in about 5 years.
When I let her up and asked her what she learned, she said she would run and scream from now on.
Women shouldn't be foot soldiers, I havent made up my mind about other things. I mean no disrespect just being realistic.
-
stupidity isn't gender related either.
There are alot of people who overestimate their abilities.
every watch REALTV?
Originally posted by narsus
I agree with lazs on this one, here is an example.
A few years ago I was dating this girl, at the time she just received her black belt in karate took her about 7 years. We were joking and she was saying that she could take me in a fight and that she had much more self confindence to stand up for herself in a fight or rape etc.
I told her if she should always run and scream to get away. This debate went on for a few minutes so she ask for me to attack her and get her to the point to where she couldn't fight back.
I ask her if she was ready (she got into her stance) and basically subdued her in about 10 seconds (had her face down in the living room with a choke hold).
Now I will tell you about me I am 5'10" 175lbs which was only about 50 lbs more than her. I have never taken karate, wrestling etc. And I hadn't worked out in about 5 years.
When I let her up and asked her what she learned, she said she would run and scream from now on.
Women shouldn't be foot soldiers, I havent made up my mind about other things. I mean no disrespect just being realistic.
-
Oh, yeah - chimpansees regularly rape their females while their close relatives bonobos don't.
Both kill and eat orangutangs - which look pretty much like those two species but apparently distinguisheable enough not to be suitable for fraternising or even rape.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Oh, yeah - chimpansees regularly rape their females while their close relatives bonobos don't.
Sweet jebus.... rape and animals.
Animals don't have the brain power to consent to sex, either all animals rape or none do.
Ever seen a dog at a park get up on another dog and start pumping away? Hell- sometimes they're both male.
-SW
-
Never said it was Kanth, the point I am making is put a woman in hand to hand combat with an equally trained man and the woman will loose a large percentage of the time.
Would a woman loose all the time of course not, but saying that "women" on average have the same strength as men is false hence they are not equal in combat ability.
Women make excellent fighter pilots due to being able to take more G's (heart is closer to the head than men). Fine great be a fighter pilot, but puting women who can't lift the exact same weight as men on "average" of course should not be on the front lines.
quoting you
There are alot of people who overestimate their abilities.
I couldn't agree more.
-
chimpanzees will also eat chimps from rival troups.
(not the greatest idea for survival of the species)
Originally posted by miko2d
Oh, yeah - chimpansees regularly rape their females while their close relatives bonobos don't.
Both kill and eat orangutangs - which look pretty much like those two species but apparently distinguisheable enough not to be suitable for fraternising or even rape.
miko
-
Nice of you to try and minimalize my post by claiming everything I do has race attached... wrong but nice just the same.
Irrational behavior caused by someones mindset towards a gender or a race or a female cat is irrelevent, and it is a stupid reason to eliminate the opportunity that someone of any race, gender or ..... cat.... might have to become whatever they might aspire to be.
Lazs... 35 years ago people were saying the same thing about female business managers! "It's just not natural"....
-
I will never say put someone who isn't up to the job, in, to do the job based on gender.
on the other hand I will also not say, exclude someone who is up to the job for the same reason.
neither get the job done in the best possible way.
Originally posted by narsus
Never said it was Kanth, the point I am making is put a woman in hand to hand combat with an equally trained man and the woman will loose a large percentage of the time.
Would a woman loose all the time of course not, but saying that "women" on average have the same strength as men is false hence they are not equal in combat ability.
Women make excellent fighter pilots due to being able to take more G's (heart is closer to the head than men). Fine great be a fighter pilot, but puting women who can't lift the exact same weight as men on "average" of course should not be on the front lines.
quoting you
I couldn't agree more.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Oh, yeah - chimpansees regularly rape their females while their close relatives bonobos don't.
Both kill and eat orangutangs - which look pretty much like those two species but apparently distinguisheable enough not to be suitable for fraternising or even rape.
miko
miko...
quick, tell me where bonobo's, chimps and orangutans coexist in nature..... 5 seconds!!!
-
I am not sure - in the documentary that showed a bunch of chimpansees eating a freshly-killed orangutan I could not quite get the nearest street intersection.
Some kind of a forest, I believe... :)
miko
-
Wulfe,
lets differentiate from sex and dominant posturing first of all.
second, lets take wolves for example, say the female alpha is out tooling around alone and the bottom string male comes along and decides he's going to mate with her.
Does the mating occur?
please explain.
------------------------------
Just in case you aren't familiar with wolves, lets try this, say the female lioness isn't in heat, does the male mate with her anyway?
please explain.
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Sweet jebus.... rape and animals.
Animals don't have the brain power to consent to sex, either all animals rape or none do.
Ever seen a dog at a park get up on another dog and start pumping away? Hell- sometimes they're both male.
-SW
-
That was a Colobus monkey they were eating... not exactly a great ape.
Chimps and Bonobo's (a sub species really) are African
Orangs are found in South East Asia
-
The alpha female will run away, and/or alert the pack.
I've seen attempted sex between four legged creatures, if the one on the bottom don't want it- it can run away.
There's usually a good size difference between alphas and the bottom rung, in favor of the alphas.
-SW
-
Altho the female, (even the alpha) is generally smaller than the males, she will only let the alpha mate with her whether an omega catches her alone, can outrun her etc.
but as far as eluding is concerned (I'll go with your argument)
Why then doesn't the alpha male mate with all of the females in the pack? He's larger, faster, they are subordinant.
he should be raping them all the time.
[edit]
less than 30 mins till I'm gone so I'll check for this later on..
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The alpha female will run away, and/or alert the pack.
I've seen attempted sex between four legged creatures, if the one on the bottom don't want it- it can run away.
There's usually a good size difference between alphas and the bottom rung, in favor of the alphas.
-SW
-
Pack species have one mate.
Where is this going?
Female animals only mate when in heat, male animals are always ready to mate and always want to mate. They'll mate with their hands, they'll mate with your leg, they'll mate in a plane, they'll mate with a train... etc.
Sometimes the female animal just may give in because it's their place, I dunno... but when an animal has been resistant (ie: definitely against their will) a fight ensues, and not a "raping" as it were.
-SW
-
Women are practically a different species from men. To expect them to perform the same in war (or any other endeavor) is ridiculous.
People will try to tell you that all the differences are created by culture. Hogwash. Differences between men and women are biological and they came about through evolutionary necessity.
It makes sense that a soldier would have a different reaction to a same-sex casualty than an opposite-sex casualty. The same-sex soldier is a rival for passing on genetic information, while the opposite-sex soldier is not. The opposite-sex soldier is in fact a potential mate. Because the primary goal is to pass on one's genetic material, it's perfectly logical that humans would evolve to value the opposite-sex soldier over the same-sex soldier.
-
women aren't practically a different species than men, the requirements at wartime are well within their abilities.
Originally posted by funkedup
Women are practically a different species from men. To expect them to perform the same in war (or any other endeavor) is ridiculous.
People will try to tell you that all the differences are created by culture. Hogwash. Differences between men and women are biological and they came about through evolutionary necessity.
-
No dood, male animals won't mate with every thing, you are not understanding the difference between posturing and mating.
when a female MOUNTS another female are they mating? and if so where are the offspring.
This is like equating rape with sex...it's not about sex, it's about dominance and control.
The only sex that occurs is between the best of gene's it's VERY selective..not brainless.
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Pack species have one mate.
Where is this going?
Female animals only mate when in heat, male animals are always ready to mate and always want to mate. They'll mate with their hands, they'll mate with your leg, they'll mate in a plane, they'll mate with a train... etc.
Sometimes the female animal just may give in because it's their place, I dunno... but when an animal has been resistant (ie: definitely against their will) a fight ensues, and not a "raping" as it were.
-SW
-
Women are quite different from men in their bodies, how they think, their emotions, etc. I'm talking biological differences, not differences in upbringing or culture. The differences are significant enough that the two sexes should be expected to have (and do have) measurable differences in performance in just about any activity.
-
Kanth, hate to burst your bubble but males of any animal species, although generally bigger and stronger, will not harm a female of the same species. It's a genetic code thingie. It extends to humans, also- we're predisposed not to harm females, but instead protect them. That's why the men unquestionably went down with the ship when the Titanic sunk. That's why the males will fight to protect the females of almost any species. It's not human nature, it's mother nature. To try to defeat this basic natural law by presenting it as a civil rights issue is laughable.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
No dood, male animals won't mate with every thing, you are not understanding the difference between posturing and mating.
when a female MOUNTS another female are they mating? and if so where are the offspring.
This is like equating rape with sex...it's not about sex, it's about dominance and control.
The only sex that occurs is between the best of gene's it's VERY selective..not brainless.
It's pretty simple:
The male can do his thing with as many mates as his "stamina" will allow. So males have evolved a desire to pretty much "mount" any female they come across. The more females they impregnate, the greater the likelihood that their genetic material will be passed on.
But the female can only be pregnant by one male at a time. If they choose wrong, they won't get another chance to reproduce for the duration of the gestation plus whatever time they spend raising the offspring. Therefore females have evolved to be more selective about who they allow to "mount" them.
-
Rape = intercourse = sex.
It just happens to not be willed.
I've seen mounting, that isn't rape.
I've seen one male dog stick his dong in another dog's tail pipe, that wasn't mounting.. that was "get ready thailor, here comesth the vein twain", upon the dog getting ASSimilated finding out what was really happening, he shot across the park faster than all hell.
I have never seen a female animal mount another female animal though, I am sure I would be fairly aroused though and would be forced to mount Funked.
Derailed this discussion has become.
-SW
-
*Blows rape whistle*
Hellllllp
Skuzzy!!!!
-
Originally posted by funkedup
*Blows rape whistle*
Hellllllp
Skuzzy!!!!
Oh, Skuzzy can't help you big boy!
-SW
-
Clearly my theory about opposite-sex mates is incorrect!
I think can now see the true motive behind SW's argument!
I knew that having photos of my bellybutton posted on the internet would come back to haunt me some day.
-
Your ass?
My screensaver is that animated picture of your tongue.... What? Why is everyone looking at me like that?
-SW
-
in the modern military, soldiers are tool users. they use weapons, not hand to hand.
should a soldier come up empty, facing a still armed opponet, he'd likely surrender.
or she.
as tool users, a female can get the job done as well as a man.
as a pack animal or a hand to hand combat opponet, they come up lacking.
just observations. don't have a clue as to veracity.. or if it's even a point for the discussion.
-
An infantry man is a pack animal and bunker building ditch digger, that is what he does when he's not sleeping, eating or on watch . You march, and when you stop, you dig, the longer that you are stopped, the deeper you dig, and you carry everything, food, water, iv bags, empty sand bags, mortar tubes, base plates, ammo and sometimes your buddy .
If you're an artilleryman you have a little better standing with the god of war, you get to ride on trucks. But when you stop you still have to dig holes and shove a cannon into place, then you get down to the business of slinging 98lb projectiles around. And St. Barbar help you if the enemy can fly .
-
ROFL :D
(And I find fishy that Funked knows so much about women...)
-
I do not agree with women in Infantry roles however there is no Gender bias when it comes to courage.
As an operational Police Officer, I have worked beside many female officers and been in more than a few knock down fights in pubs with them at my side.
Ive seen skinny underweight girls put up every bit as much of a fight as any bloke I worked with. Ive seen blokes hesitate or simply back off when the decision was clear that it was a hands on job.
Violent demonstrations, arrests of violent offenders, Police v Civvie fights etc etc. I can name only a few of both genders who failed when it came to putting their bodies on the line.
But I can think of no time in 14 years where I thought that the woman beside me was any less interested in protecting my prettythang than any bloke standing beside me.
My concerns on females employed in a Combat Infantry unit have little to do with the females themselves, but the males in the unit.
As Laz pointed out. Males will do stupid things in the mistaking belief that the females need protecting. Ive seen this myself more than once.
As for the females ability to do the job however, I have no concerns that they can do it every bit as good as the men.
The consequences of War are dirty and filthy. If a female combatant (and I include REMF's in this as well) accepts those consequences and is still prepared to stand alongside her male comrades and bear arms against an enemy.
Then she has as much right to do so as any male.
-
That's what I been tryin' to say Sp00k!
You just organized it a lot clearer and to the point.
-SW
-
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003132548,00.html
-
Women make fine MP's they can drive a humvee and operate a grenade launcher or 50cal as good as anyone.
In my REMF years I was honored with serving with some very fine female officers, even a west pointer. I trusted their judgement and would've followed them to the edge of the known universe .
But combat arms is very very labor intensive, and when you're humping it, or running to a pick up, you have to pick up the slack for anybody whos dragging ass, sometimes that means carrying extra, sometimes that means carrying a person . It's cliche but true, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link . I was the weak link once, think all cherries are the weak link untill the blisters on the hands and feet are replaced with callouses and the toenails fall off .
Pongo weren't you a leg ? Can I get a witness ?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Kanth, hate to burst your bubble but males of any animal species, although generally bigger and stronger, will not harm a female of the same species. It's a genetic code thingie. It extends to humans, also- we're predisposed not to harm females, but instead protect them. That's why the men unquestionably went down with the ship when the Titanic sunk. That's why the males will fight to protect the females of almost any species. It's not human nature, it's mother nature. To try to defeat this basic natural law by presenting it as a civil rights issue is laughable.
Basic natural law...
Like having the woman stay home while the man goes out to hunt.. only makes sense right? I mean how do you procreate if you get dead killing that mammoth? So it must be natural for men to be the breadwinner too!
Fire all the women folk and make em go home!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So it must be natural for men to be the breadwinner too!
Fire all the women folk and make em go home!
Airhead did not say that. I did not say that. I don't believe Lazs said that.
I do believe you are the only one drawing this conclusion.
Radical statements make great headlines, that's about it.
-SW
-
But combat arms is very very labor intensive, and when you're humping it, or running to a pick up, you have to pick up the slack for anybody whos dragging ass, sometimes that means carrying extra, sometimes that means carrying a person . It's cliche but true, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link . I was the weak link once, think all cherries are the weak link untill the blisters on the hands and feet are replaced with callouses and the toenails fall off .
yup. seemed so to me. i never served with any females.. before my time. but as i sit and think about the work i did for unca sam, there's no doubt a female could have fulfilled all the basic reqirements for a meal card. (mos 62M20, served in a maint battalion)
11Bravo would be a whole diffrent story. combat arms ain't service and evac.. but as those guys n' gals in the 509th discovered, there are days when the fine print on the work order get underlined.
somebody sure screwed the pooch nin the desert that day.
-
Women in general are different than men - true. That means that on any given quality their mean value and even standard deviation of teh distribution may be different from men.
Which only means that at every particular point on capabilities scale you may find less women than men.
But it still means that at any point you may have some women that exceed most men and equal to whatever requirements are facing them.
Making all women participate in man's activities in the same proportuions - ceratinly not. But allowing some woman to prove they have the same abilities as men - why not?
miko
-
as i pointed out miko... it does far more harm than good... I can't see where it does any good whatsoever. I think that to allow women in combat would mean a major readustment in the way civilian women are treated. How would you know if the woman who slapped you at the bar was a combat marine or not? certainly you would be justified in disfiguring her with a couple of short jabs to the nose and jaw.
A man married to a combat marine female could hardly be arrested for beating the crap outta her. Rap "singers" would have whole new audiences for their lyrics.
Millons of Women who lacked testosterone and were not the least interested in being a combat trooper would be subject to the draft. People would by neccessity have to be desensitized to brutality to women.
I don't think that is a good thing.
There are things about gender that trancend equality... if you can't see that then you need to get out of the books and get out more.
lazs
-
lazs2: I think that to allow women in combat would mean a major readustment in the way civilian women are treated.
We should have though of that before we allowed all that emansipation and women literacy to happen.
Anyway, you are way off the mark here - or way too late. I am not proposing to increase number of women in US military. There are plenty of them in already. Quite an opposite. I propose to use the same standards for women as for men - which will result in drastic reduction in the number of women in our military, while allowing the principles of freedom of choice and equality of opportunities to operate.
There are things about gender that trancend equality... if you can't see that then you need to get out of the books and get out more.
That may be true. But in whatever little I did get out, I've met some women military, mostly Israelis. In fact I am working with an Israeli woman who would most sertainly kick most of our tulips and outhink us too - being PhD. in Math, despite women in general being the weaker sex and not as intelligent, especially at the higher end of the scale and less capable in math-related disciplines.
Maybe you should pay less attention to books and statistical everages and meet more real people - especially people at the top of the capabilities. :)
miko
-
miko... I am in no way saying that women should not be in the military if they wish to. I am talking about combat roles.
I am also willing to bet that even a beat up old 53 year old like me would have no trouble beating the crap out of your israeli female friend. I also have no doubt that she is much brighter in the subjects she has studied than I would be in them. she may be much brighter than me overall... that doesn't bother me a bit... I never claimed any genius status.
and mt... gender is not race. if you continue to link them then you deserve to have your arguements trivialized.
kanth... I believe you are wrong in throwing all the women to the wolves so that a few freaks can disrupt our combat effectiveness. And yes I know that everyone has some amount of testosterone... Do you know what happens to women who raise their levels to those of mens?
lazs
-
lazs2: I am also willing to bet that even a beat up old 53 year old like me would have no trouble beating the crap out of your israeli female friend.
That particular israeli, you probably have a chance, if you are good enough. My 23 year old friend who was a finalist in the Belorussia women Judo would probably tie you into a knot with one hand tied.
A few women athletes I personally knew back in Ukraine would put up quite a fight and probably kick the s#$t out of 95 men out of a 100.
I trained attack dogs with one - dressed in regular civilian clothes and gloves, not padded suits, lest to teach dogs bad habits. She was 150 pounds and would disable an attacking great dane or any other dog - mostly german sheperds (without harming one) faster that you would realise what is going on. She also run 30 miles marathones with men.
The other one, from an elite "intelligentsia" soviet family, who run off and made her living in Istanbull bordello for a few years, before getting here, graduating straight A in computer science and getting a job in a major bank - or the other one, the daughter of a Moldavian government official whom we "kidnapped" from a visiting soviet student group in 1990, who lived with no money or other help, besides advice, and is now a medical resident doctor after graduating Harward - both would break under torture way later than 99.9% of the men, if I know anything about people.
All girls in my high school shot rifles better then boys.
The most vicious people I've known personally - and I knew quite a lot - were women.
All those were exception rather than a rule - or more accurately the right tail of the bell curve, not an exception, but there were quite a few of them.
Replacing the worst males in the military with some of them would not be detrimental in any way. I just cannot comprehend denying a person with proven capabilities an opportunity to do any job that is open to another person of the same capabilities, based on circumstances of a birth, regardless who is going to get upset or take it the wrong way.
I know all about customs and traditions that formed spontaneously but make a lot of sense. But we are talking about exceptional individuals here and such always existed and even circumvented rules and traditions without destroying them.
miko
-
Do you know what happens to women who raise their levels to those of mens?
They drive El Camino's ?
-
They end up with alot more hair on their asses.
btw I was very clear on my position, if they can do the job they should be there, gender regardless..
I never said anything about "all women" in fact my point is that it's non gender based.
Originally posted by lazs2
Do you know what happens to women who raise their levels to those of mens?
lazs
-
mt... some do but they can't work on em. El Caminos are allmost certain proof of manhood in most circles... I believe black males prefer rancheros tho due to the fact that they have more chrome and phony scoops and such.
miko... i really doubt that those women can beat 95 out of 100 men. I would have no fear of them whatsoever. still.... you have missed my point entirely... i know that you have better than average rrading comprehension ability so I can only assume that you are sidestepping the issue. Again... I believe that it would be bad for everyone except for the few freaks who want it. I do not advocate making combat tougher for all the men that have to do it. I don't advocate making firefighting or police work tougher either but combat in particular.
-
Ex USAF (DOS 11/80)
Seen it and don't like it
I’m old fashioned I guess but I don't want girls in combat no how no way. War is bad and nasty stuff, no place for a woman.
my $.02
-
lazs2: i really doubt that those women can beat 95 out of 100 men.
Those - maybe. I did not measure to know exactly. But some women certainly can.
You can look at the mean and standard deviation of distribution of women's and man's abilities - any abiliteis, all known an measured, and accurately predict how many women will be better than 95% of men. Not many, true - but a few thousand out of US population. Plain math - no tricks, nothing to doubt or even measure - just to use existing data and math tables.
How many women are taller than 95% of men? Have more muscle mass? Bench more weight? Run faster, jump further? All there.
Sinse Spec Ops probably find one out of a million men suitable, there may not be any women fit, but for regular army the treshhold is not that high - maybe 2 out of 10 men, 1 out of 100,000 women - but some would pass.
At the same time the real negative side effects you refer to are mostly hypothetical - since the most women currently serving are not representative sample of those that should be allowed to serve
The cultural aspect of your argument - ignoring their abilities and sacrificing their desires for the benefit of cultural pregudices is quite valid.
Here we can disagree just based on our preferences.
Of course there is an ultimate reality test of such cultural preferences too - prosperity and survival of a civilisation, but I do not think this particular choice, whichever way it goes, is going to be significant compared to the other ones we make.
miko
-
miko... no matter what... you would lose effectiveness... the men would react differently in the presence of women... that part is hardwired into us as humans... That is bad news in combat. The women would also either shower and sleep with the men (and everything else) or have special accomadations. that is bad either way... how men react to women sexulaly is hardwired into humans. (heinlein excepted).
you yourself note how few would be acceptable.. (I have seen many combats with men against women but that were entertainment but have never seen a woman win)... I disagree that there are women with more natural upper body strength than normal men. The potential is certainly not there.
So.. what is the advantage? none that I can see. The VAST majority of women will not apprecdiate the brave new world that kanth wishes on them. Kanth would open, throw open, the door to drafting women as combat troops and both of you seem to advocate treating women as equals in domestic confrontations. or is that not correct?
lazs
-
lazs2: miko... no matter what... you would lose effectiveness... the men would react differently in the presence of women...
Maybe - but not always. Soviet army I knew would certainly not have lost any combat efficiency due to soft-heartedness. Guys that I served with would not care in the least if a woman buddy rather than a man way lying there screaming her throat out. Not a bit.
Of course the peacetime efficiency would suffer enourmously...
Probably it would be the opposite in the US army - affect the combat but not the peacetime where soldiers do have access to women and are more civil in general.
I guess some problems could be corrected by having all-female units if enough are available.
Also, I certainly do not approve of drafting women for abilities and biological reasons - you can lose most of the males but not have an affect on the number of children in the next generation. Somebody has to produce and care for children and we have no choice which gender is that.
But I would allow them to enlist voluntarily - those who decide for themselves that they do not care for children (like many do now for "career") but rather be like men - and pass the muster. Who am I to deny them a choice?
As for "treating women as equals in domestic confrontations", I do not understand what you mean by that. I believe in chivalry code but how the heck could it be affected legally? It's a cultural thing that parents and educators instill. I can only affect my own children in that respect - teach boys to be manly and girls to be feminine. That all in civil setting, of course. In confrontation if one has to hurt a person, underestimating and "sparing" a women can be very deadly.
Both will have to be proficient at shooting and martial arts of course.
miko
-
Absolutely.
My personal opinon about fighting:
Never hit someone in regards to freedom of speech, they found this right so valuable they put in on paper in a form and that's good enough for me..
however if someone attacks me I will defend myself and so should anyone who values their health and life.
--------------
Also if a domestic confrontation gets to the point where one person would actually strike another, it should have been over LONG LONG before that. There is no love that includes people beating the crap out of each other, there is no love that includes cheating on each other..
people have to know when something is bad and to let it go.
it is poor judgement and asking for trouble to do otherwise.
---------------
I believe that no matter how righteous your cause, you do not have the right to interfere or cause harm to another unless you or yours are directly in danger from that person...
and it's your responsibility as a reasonable person to prevent any situations of that nature from occuring where humanly possible.
those are my own personal beliefs.
--------------
Basically this follows a theme of freedom to determine one's own life and happiness without any right to inflict yourself or your own opinions on others as long they are not a danger to yourself and your family.
--------------
the answer is, yes, equals in all things.
and may the stupid rid us of themselves in the process.
Originally posted by lazs2
both of you seem to advocate treating women as equals in domestic confrontations. or is that not correct?
lazs
-
Physically the woman's body does not have anywhere close to the muscle mass a man's body has.
Its just how the female and male bodies evolved. Cant do much about it.
Now, that there are women that can beat the stuffing out of a man yes. However, we would be talking about an extra-ordinary woman beating up an average man.
Im talking sheer strength, not judo or whatnot training.
Combat roles for a woman, in my opinion, would be all except for the ground foot soldier role. Women are at par with men as pilots, sailors, tank crews, etc. But when it comes to picking up several dozen pounds of gear and fighting with that hanging from their backs, the average male has a significant advantage over the average female.
BTW, ask your Israeli friend if women in the israeli army are front line combat troops. Ive met many fascinating israeli ladies, one of them was even an officer in the infantry, and theyve all told me they would not be allowed into ground combat as foot soldiers unless it was absolutely neccessary. This officer girl would tell me that while she didnt feel she would underperform a male officer, she agreed that when push came to shove, a male officer would be more effective FIGHTING (not leading) than she would.
All I can say is that if I were 18 and were assigned as a rifleman in a unit and we had one or 2 girls in the unit, their presence would very likely distract me a lot (hormones, nothing you can do about that), and if in combat one of them got hurt, my morale would drop a ****load more than if one of the guys got hit.
-
kanth.. that is very easy for you to say... if you are struck by a man he is in deep ****.. legally and... if any MAN i know is around... he is in danger of a good beating. As best I can recall.... I don't hit people for free speech issues... If they are in my "space" and worked up I may take them out as a precaution (read "i was scared to death officer")... I would not do so with a woman... I have been struck by women... it's no reason to strike back... I have struck a womans forearm (left a huge bruise) who was pointing a gun at my brother. Being hit by a woman is NOT a reason for a civilized man to hit back. You are simply wrong. What you advocate is wrong. Fortunately... you are in a very small minority.
miko.... all woman combat units? now you are getting silly and... grasping at straws.. as for Soviet army as a model... surely you jest... WWII Soviet armies just needed bodies to stop bullets... any would do... rape and torture were day to day events and shooting your own retreating troops was the order of the day.... I reject any arguement that uses the soviet army. Also... if you read what kanth writes then you will see just what the ultimate goal of such feminist crazies is in regards to "domestic" issues... the combat units just open the door.
The israli's were desperate and outnumbered and even they have found the folly of women combat troops... for the reasons I have mentioned pretty much... If any country has a need for your brave new world it is theirs and they reject it.
lazs
-
I knew a woman who thought like you did, she figured you can hit anyone you like, as long as it's not a child, and it's all legal.
she probably thought it was okay to beat up kids too as long as no one sees you.
strange world.
Originally posted by lazs2
kanth.. that is very easy for you to say... if you are struck by a man he is in deep ****.. legally
lazs