Women in the military

[Biker]

There's an excellent editorial in today's <a href="http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030329/COWENT29/TPColumnists/">Globe and Mail</a> regarding women in the military and whether we should be rethinking the issue of women and combat roles.

Through out my 20 years in the Air Force, I had the privilege of working with many bright and dedicated women. While I don't agree with many of the changes in the military that came about because of our acceptance of women, I can't think of very many that I would not be proud to serve with again.

But this editorial does raise some interesting points. Should we rethink our position on women in combat roles? Or should we remove all remaining restrictions and make it a true "equal opportunity" career?

[Cariad]

Don't think we should rethink at all, if they want to join the military, and they know the risks, don't expect preferential treatment, then why not? As the article states, female nurses have been at the forefront in many wars, and have always been at a risk of being captured and killed

I don't see how a single mom's death is any different than a single dad. It's just we (women) have always been the pampered sex, and thought of as the weaker sex, and now it's difficult for some to adjust to the fact that we're quite capable of keeping up with our male counterparts.

When I say we - I don't mean me, if there isn't a soft bed and a shower in the near vicinity, I'm not interested.

[Sierra Mike]

In the Army, women train to different standards than men. This has always been a big problem, but whenever the Army has tried to standardize training, women's rights groups come in riding Hellfires and claiming it's unfair treatment.

So women get by with 20 pushups while men have to hammer out 50 a clip.

SM

[Biker]

Yeah, forgot about that. Since we went to riding a bicycle for our annual fitness testing (and you wonder why I enjoyed the Air Force?!), I keep forgetting that the other services are downright mean and medival to their troops.

[Sierra Mike]

Bikes? Christ...guess 15km marches with full gear is out of the question in the USAF, huh?

Though I have to admit I'd be hard-pressed to march even one meter while tugging an F-15E behind me.

SM

[Neo]

Originally posted by Biker
But this editorial does raise some interesting points. Should we rethink our position on women in combat roles? Or should we remove all remaining restrictions and make it a true "equal opportunity" career? The Israelis tried and said forget about it, contrary to urban legend. Some of their top combat instructors are women though.

With their rep and manpower shortage if the Israelis are against it learn a lesson in reality.

The military isn't some place for some half-ass social politically correct experiment.

[IamZed]

The US seems to be handling it well. We have had women at the front. Any POW saw the front on the way in. We have had women soldiers give the ultimate I presume, until all is known. We are not freaking out. I have known several women in the service and that is what they all wished for. Amazingly we seem to be there.
Of course this does not please me. One kind of old fashioned involves keeping the other half at home and in the kitchen. My kind just wants them to duck. This war will be the last for a few with so many restrictions on female combatants, as so many of our women seem ready and willing to fight along side.
However I have to agree with Matrix. It is an experiment that is tried then shut down. We will see why the hard way.

[melpomene]

Are you serious even starting this thread Biker :rolleyes:

Ok, so women cant do 50 pushups, in boot camp, big bloody deal. They are brilliant statiticians, excellent in surveillance stuff - go for the detail, are methodical and thorough. Have excellent commanding time management and people skills out there on the field.

So they have mammary glands and have periods...............:rolleyes:

and quite a few are single mothers - big deal.

[Coot]

I think it's been aluded to, but there are differences in physical conditioning requirements. I really believe the combat role has to go with the job assigned. There are women fighter pilots, and I'm pretty sure some of them unassed some formidable weaponry on the RG. Good on 'em.

Now, as to the two women taken, they were in support roles. Yet even support troops have to fight, and when it starts coming down to whether you're taken POW or not...especially by a country that will not honor the GC, I have to believe that hand to hand combat becomes a very real possibility. At that point, I don't think it matters how good a tank mechanic you are. If it comes down to that kind of a fight, it's not just their lives they are responsible for, but the lives of their compatriots and that is, where I believe, the argument falls apart. In that kind of close in fighting, I want the strongest and the fastest to have my back.

[ethics]

How about women as a last resort? The rescue of the 19 year old has got me thinking about the nightmares this woman probably went through, something a man rarely does.

[mikepd]

Originally posted by ethics
How about women as a last resort? The rescue of the 19 year old has got me thinking about the nightmares this woman probably went through, something a man rarely does.

Are you sure about that? I know of one person that has them every night. I think it depends on the person not the sex. VA hospitals have patients who have difficulty functioning due to stress from captivity, not just combat. Individuals vary and some cannot handle it as well as others.

[ethics]

I am looking over this as a protector than anything else. The torture would be much more psychological with a woman as a PoW (especially in the hands of scum like Iraqi fighters) than a man. The rape, sexual molestation, sexual torture, the way they can maim the genitals, etc... If you want me to get in to details I will, it won't be pretty though.

And while I agree that the same CAN be done to men, I would object on the thinking that it would be happening to men as much as it would to women.

[melpomene]

See now this is it, isnt it. The psychology of a women being tortured and rape. It goes completely against the grain of any man. Its a bit monkey in its origins. Tarzan of the jungle stuff. I just dont think men can cope with a women being tortured and killed, simple as that. The face of young Jesica (thank god she is out of there) is tearing at the hearts of most males in the world. And this is the source to your queries of women being in combat.

[ethics]

I won't deny any of what you stated, Melissa.

[Copzilla]

Originally posted by melpomene
Are you serious even starting this thread Biker :rolleyes:

Ok, so women cant do 50 pushups, in boot camp, big bloody deal. They are brilliant statiticians, excellent in surveillance stuff - go for the detail, are methodical and thorough. Have excellent commanding time management and people skills out there on the field.

So they have mammary glands and have periods...............:rolleyes:

and quite a few are single mothers - big deal.

It is a big deal. Those skills you suggest, while valid, are not the only skills required of a true-blue front line combat machine.

Women are not genetically predisposed to the hard fight. As a general rule - What you will see lack in a female in a kill or be killed situation is the seething, pissed off, testosterone and adrenaline induced fury that a male is capable of producing.

This is not to say whether women should or shouldn't be allowed in combat roles. But to deny that there is a difference between the sexes in a "hard fight" environment is not only incorrect, it's dangerous to the combatants, as they may be held back while waiting for a weaker member of the team.

Once the admissions are made as to differences, and what people are capable of bringing to the combat arena -as well as incapable of, then we can actually work on how best to utilize people. Everything else is counter-productive, and just politically correct BS.

[EricaZ98]

BLAH!! Just so you know Biker, on my last PT test I did 78 push ups, 98 situps and ran the two mile in 1530.. so :P


Yes, I myself really hate the though of women on the front line, doing combat positions such as infantry. But seeing as how we have had so many women this go around that are fighting on the front lines, lets get those that want to more trained and prepared to fight for the front. Most women go in not worrying about the front line, I was told all through training that I would never be on the front line. Well, Jessica Lynch was a 92Y same as my MOS, in the same unit I served with. That could have been me out there had I still been in Bliss (I left that unit in Jan 2000) I guess thats another reasons why this whole POW situation has hit me so hard, not only do I know those missing personally, but it could have been me out there missing... or dead. In a way I am glad to be out of that unit now, but another part of me is happy to be here, safe, but I feel guilty that they are there and I am not

[Fiona]

Originally posted by Steve Moore
In the Army, women train to different standards than men. This has always been a big problem, but whenever the Army has tried to standardize training, women's rights groups come in riding Hellfires and claiming it's unfair treatment.

So women get by with 20 pushups while men have to hammer out 50 a clip.

SM Men have a biological predisposition to more physical upper body strength than women... ;) there have to be allowances... equal rights and equal opportunity does not mean equal performance... a few women might be way better than a few men...

for more about women and their "weakness" I've got to hunt down this movie, unfortunately it's Susan Sarandon, but it's portrayal of the INNER strength and resolve in women is so true.
(i think i found it... Women of Valor (1986))

[Fiona]

Originally posted by Sydney
BLAH!! Just so you know Biker, on my last PT test I did 78 push ups, 98 situps and ran the two mile in 1530.. so :P


It's been a while since I've been tested... 98 in what time frame?

I useta be so good :cry: sucks ta get old and squishy

[Copzilla]

2 minutes. Those are extraordinary numbers for male soldiers. The run is not unusual for males, but would pass for males. It is extraordinary for females.

[Sierra Mike]

Originally posted by fiona_campbell
Men have a biological predisposition to more physical upper body strength than women... ;) there have to be allowances... equal rights and equal opportunity does not mean equal performance... a few women might be way better than a few men...

for more about women and their "weakness" I've got to hunt down this movie, unfortunately it's Susan Sarandon, but it's portrayal of the INNER strength and resolve in women is so true.
(i think i found it... Women of Valor (1986))

Sorry, in order for a combat unit to be entirely effective, one standard has to be adopted. There can be no other way.

Personally, when I heard that women were being assessed into combat aviation, I didn't respond to it unfavorably. My personal litmus test is if a woman can pull my carcass out of a downed a/c, then she can fight the sticks with me. I know that women can put steel on target as good as any man from an Apache, so I never had any issues with it based on their sex whatsoever. But I know for a fact that I could (at the time) lug 220 pounds of unconscious warrant officer from a crashed bird. All I ask is that a woman be able to do the same for me. If she can't, then I don't want her.

Very simple.

As far as combat troops (Eleven Bravos) go, I have no experience in that, as I was never an infantryman. I'll let those who have that MOS under their belt speak for their respective branch.

SM

[Fiona]

Originally posted by Steve Moore
But I know for a fact that I could (at the time) lug 220 pounds of unconscious warrant officer from a crashed bird. All I ask is that a woman be able to do the same for me. If she can't, then I don't want her.
SM I can agree with that... :thumbsup:

[Fiona]

I'd be happy to drag your... oh, did i say that outloud? shameless hussy :angel: it's the moon... (what's wrong with me?) rofl

[Sierra Mike]

The moon? It's daytime, silly.

SM

[Robert Harris]

Hey -- I think we are seeing the beginning of a new romance!

[ShinyTop]

It's obvious that FC has not met a rotor jockey before!:)

[Fiona]

WANNA BET SHINY? (goes back to work laughing all the way)

[Sierra Mike]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
It's obvious that FC has not met a rotor jockey before!:)

Well, helicopter pilots do have their collective shit together.

SM

[Fiona]

now theres an interesting visual... rofl

[Copzilla]

Originally posted by Sydney
BLAH!! Just so you know Biker, on my last PT test I did 78 push ups, 98 situps and ran the two mile in 1530.. so :P
Question, Syd, were these modified pushups and situps?

When I was in the Army many moons ago, the women not only had lower standards in order to qualify, they also had modified pushups where they did it with their knees touching the ground, as opposed to their feet. Much easier.

I'm not trying to knock the accomplishment, you're certainly very very fit in order to get the numbers you do, but if you're not doing the same exercise as the men, then it's still a completely different set of standards being employed. And in a position where physical strength and stamina can mean the difference not only in your own life but in someone else's life, that's no place for politics.

[EricaZ98]

No cop.. the Army does not allow modification for test. I will have to scan my PT cards some night. But yes, they are the same exercises

The standards for females are set lower for females, but that doesnt mean we have to only set ourselves for those standards.

[Misu]

I don't know what the req's are for females, but I have a question:

Those missiles that the Navy launches from their warships - those things look really heavy. How much do they weigh?

I ask because a few days ago, while viewing some pics taken on a few of our warships currently deployed, I saw one picture where 2 females were loading those missiles - they were carrying those missiles on their shoulders (2 females per missle) as if they were carrying a purse. They looked really heavy.

I think that the women who make it through boot camp and work as soldiers are a different caliber than your "typical" woman - someone like me would probably never have survived boot camp (with my back? pfft - that missle would have broken me in 2). Perhaps women in the front lines isn't such a bad thing - if they want to fight, and can make it through the tough physical req's, then why not?

If the reason why not is because it makes the male soldiers uncomfortable, then that's an entirely different issue.

[ShinyTop]

Misu, you probably saw some pics of people loading air to air missiles. The Thomahawk's warhead alone is 1000 lbs so the total weight of the missile has to be over a ton. They are lifted by cranes.

[Sierra Mike]

The standards for females are set lower for females, but that doesnt mean we have to only set ourselves for those standards.

Yes, but it does mean there are two standards for the same Army. As long as there are two standards, then women will continue to be second class citizens in The Men's House.

SM

[melpomene]

Copzilla, you are always going to chew my ass on this forum, aint ya :rolleyes:

I agree, with Steve Moore, for a unit to be effective it needs to run at one standard.

Women fall down in the upper body strength department. We just do not have the muscle groupings and volume of muscle to ever have the strength of men. Sorry, girls, this is true. So when your birds come down in the Iraqi desert. I reckon that women, would use their brains to haul your arses out of the mess. SM's big half dead body in the cockpit. Fiona finds a chord and a broken piece of wing, and uses these things to haul SM's huge stature out of the downed plane.

[Copzilla]

Originally posted by Sydney
No cop.. the Army does not allow modification for test. I will have to scan my PT cards some night. But yes, they are the same exercises

The standards for females are set lower for females, but that doesnt mean we have to only set ourselves for those standards.
Agreed. Wow. You are a tough lady.:thumbsup:

[Fiona]

Originally posted by melpomene
Copzilla, you are always going to chew my ass on this forum, aint ya :rolleyes:

I agree, with Steve Moore, for a unit to be effective it needs to run at one standard.

Women fall down in the upper body strength department. We just do not have the muscle groupings and volume of muscle to ever have the strength of men. Sorry, girls, this is true. So when your birds come down in the Iraqi desert. I reckon that women, would use their brains to haul your arses out of the mess. SM's big half dead body in the cockpit. Fiona finds a chord and a broken piece of wing, and uses these things to haul SM's huge stature out of the downed plane.

:thumbsup: I was gonna say sumpin like that...but you did it much better... and it will probably be more well received ;)

[Copzilla]

Originally posted by melpomene
Copzilla, you are always going to chew my ass on this forum, aint ya :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, I really didn't mean it to sound like that.

When it comes to combat tactics, as has been my history, I take the topic very seriously. Of course, my application of them apply to domestic issues, but the principles as we're discussing here are the same.

Not saying I don't support women in police work or in the military. I do. But all combatants, including women, MUST understand their limitations, as I've said many times to my cop wife. Anything else can be a deadly mistake.

[melpomene]

Absolutely agree, Copzilla. Those who recognise their weaknesses and acknowledge them, are generally well rounded and stable individuals.

As for this military stuff.........especially SM and his personal spy satellite up there in the stratosphere...............is a huge eye opener for me. And i am loving it. :thumbsup:

[Misu]

Shiny, this was the picture I was referring to (one is a male - I thought it was 2 females):

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030321/capt.1048284154.us_military_iraq_war_xrjv102.jpg

Aviation Ordnancemen Anna Mazy from Marietta, Ohio, left and Mark Graham from Englewood, Ohio load an Amram, AIM-120, air to air missile on to an F/A-18 Hornet aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt on Friday March 21, 2003 in preparation for attacks against Iraq (news - web sites). (AP Photo/Richard Vogel)

How much does that thing weigh? Because she clearly has it on her shoulder (as does the guy), so I'm wondering how heavy that thing is that they're loading it up.

[Misu]

And here's another image:

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030327/capt.1048751444.us_military_iraq_war_xrjv204.jpg

Female Ordnanceman Stephanie Manfredonia from Bronx, N.Y. prepares to move JDAM bombs on the deck of the USS Theodore Roosevelt for air strikes over Iraq (news - web sites), on Tuesday March 27,2003. The squadrons of the carrier group in the eastern Mediteranean have stepped up flight operations in support of 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.' U.S. forces edged closer to Baghdad on several routes Thursday clashing with Iraqi troops and preparing for a possible confrontation with Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s Republican Guard. (AP Photo/Richard Vogel)

A previous image said JDAM bombs weigh approx. 1000 lbs each - and they're not lifting them with cranes - they ferry them around on trollies. This girl seems to be getting ready to pull that thing on her own.

[Stiofán]

Google search puts the weight of AIM-120 at 355 pounds.

[cdw]

Do women cops train the same as their male counterparts?
When they were first admitted onto the force, the reaction was the same, no?
I wouldn't join, it's not my forte, but for those that want and can do it, I believe they should. All men can't be good soldiers and all women can't be good soldiers. You can't just deny a full group and lump them all together. They're individuals. And trust me, I've seen quite a few women that have that fight and muster in them. Contrary to popular opinon, we aren't all the same. ;o)
And, so you also know, some women can disassociate themselves from the action of rape and torture and make it through the experience. Just as a man would have to do.

[melpomene]

great pics, misu, thanks heaps, as photos speak volumes for me.

he looks to me, as taking the brunt of the weight, and she is guideing where they are going. why hasnt she got both arms up there, balancing the damn thing??

[Sierra Mike]

Because they're carried by three people. I've been on Navy carriers before, and they always have three people when they load -120s or AIM-7s. You can see there's a third vest at the leading edge of the picture. Armorers wear red.

SM

SM

[melpomene]

oh yeah, there is too.............bet ya the other one is a guy

[Sierra Mike]

Not necessarily, it could be another woman. I'm just pointing out that they usually (from what I've observed) use 'em in trios when moving ordnance at a certain weight level.

But I would presume it's a man, otherwise they would have shown both women. :)

SM

[Copzilla]

Originally posted by cydweeks
Do women cops train the same as their male counterparts?
When they were first admitted onto the force, the reaction was the same, no?
No, women in the academy are not held to the same physical standards. I don't necessarily believe it would be productive to do so, because it would wash out a lot of perfectly good candidates, BUT at the same token, I wouldn't want most women cops I've ever met taking point on a SWAT team in front of me, either.

My stance is not being sexist, it's being realistic. I believe that to make our combat capability reach its maximum potential, we have to be realistic and not all kinds of PC. Anything else can be a problem, at a time when a problem can cost a life.

Originally posted by cydweeks
I wouldn't join, it's not my forte, but for those that want and can do it, I believe they should. All men can't be good soldiers and all women can't be good soldiers. You can't just deny a full group and lump them all together. They're individuals. And trust me, I've seen quite a few women that have that fight and muster in them.
I understand some men can't be good soldiers, and they do get washed out, all the time, in fact. I imagine a lot of them would not be washed out if the standards were lower for weaker, skinnier men, or for men who couldn't run very well. How'd that be? Think that will help make us a good military?

I have never seen a women able to bring the primal rage and seething fury that a male is capable of bringing. And I have seen an awful lot of women that THINK otherwise, and are given a nasty dose of reality as soon as they try to take on a man full tilt in a training environment. Inevitably the reaction is "Uhhh, maybe I don't need this that bad." The guys typically are holding back on them, too. Don't kid yourself, Cyd. In a fight, the vast majority of women are not physically equipped to do anything but get thrashed against a male.

Originally posted by cydweeks
Contrary to popular opinon, we aren't all the same. ;o)
Certainly not. Sydney is a classic example. She would put a lot of men I know to shame in the PT pit. BUT - I'd still wager my money on any random male against her in a pugel stick fight.

I'm not trying to say that women like Sydney don't have a place in the military. They certainly do, and Sydney obviously takes a lot of pride in her fitness. I'm grateful to her, for her service and sacrifice. But at the same time that women are in the military, and there are two sets of physical standards, why is it so difficult to believe that there are definite physiological differences that makes one sex better suited for combat? The very fact that there are two standards is prima facie evidence of that statement.

This is where my argument has been going all along - <B>I believe that women in the military who want to operate on the ground or in the air in a combat theater MUST be required to perform the same physical fitness standards as a male.</B>

That's strictly in the combat theater. The lady sailor loading out the F18, that's out of the theater enough. There are a gazillion ways a woman who cannot match those physical requirements may still serve honorably, and with great necessity.

[Neo]

Originally posted by Steve Moore
Well, helicopter pilots do have their collective shit together.

SM They just can't lift it. (The devil made me post this!)

[Neo]

One of the most famous or honored film documentary on Lions has a scene that I am reminded of by this thread.

In one experience of the lions captured on film three or four female lions have killed a large animal and are feeding on it. A pack of hyenas come upon them. Lions and hyenas are the most bitter of enemies in the animal world. Lions genuinely hate hyenas. The hyenas start to harass and nip at the lions to get them away from the kill. The lions are much bigger and more powerful than the hyenas but are outnumbered. After some sparing and snarling the female lions get up on some large rocks next to the kill and concede it to the hyenas. One wonders why they just don't get down and do some ass kicking.

Then all of a sudden the head male of the pride come hauling ass and roaring up to the hyenas and he is pissed and outraged. JUst him, alone! The hyenas beat feet but the male lion immediately identifies the hyena pack leader goes right after him and with one lunge snaps the hyenas' back. Fight over. Lions win. Hyenas still running. Hormones, aggressiveness, and muscle wins the "war."

[ethics]

Whoa. Here I always thought that male Lions were the lazy suckers in the pride?

[Neo]

Originally posted by ethics
Whoa. Here I always thought that male Lions were the lazy suckers in the pride? He is. Just don't get in his face, piss him off, or challenge his king of the hill position.

[ethics]

I guess when food is on the line... Very interesting, Matrix, but are you using the analogy with the human males in the military? Are you saying that the female would yield more?

After the entire Jessica Lynch scenario, I've begun rethinking my male protection of the female. She KNEW what would happen to her, so she was fighting till death. I am not advocating martyrdom for females, but it made me think.

[EricaZ98]

Good call Ethics.. I was just going to bring the Jessica Lynch issue up. She is a tiny thing and doesnt look very toned/muscular and she probably averages out on PT tests, but she survived. It takes mental strength as well as phyiscal strength to survive.. and she made it, alone.

She so deserves the Bronze star and Purple Heart she will receive. She is a true hero... I cant even fathom what she went through, nor do I want to, but she fought to what she thought was the end and was probably tortured for it, but yet she never gave up. What a great young lady she is.

[Misu]

Originally posted by ethics
Whoa. Here I always thought that male Lions were the lazy suckers in the pride?

*sorry I'm late - been sick*

Male lions usually are lazy - but there's a reason why they have a harem. Anyone who messes with his ladies will get killed. Male lions are constantly fighting off other male lions trying to take over the pride - and if the new lion wins, he immediately goes to kill all of the old lion's cubs.

It's how nature works. The male lion appears lazy because he's really just resting up for the next battle. They're always fighting.

The thing is, though - we're not like lions. We're humans, we use our brains more than we use our brawn. I do agree with cop in the sense that a woman who is on the frontlines should be able to defend herself just like a male - does it mean she has to be able to pass all the strict physical requirements? I don't know - women are faster, more agile - perhaps there is training females can receive in training that will take advantage of that.

[Sacchiridites]

-Girlfriend of mine got certified HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning). She couldn't lift a HVAC unit by herself, got fired over it, and went to stripping in the clubs the next night. Not fair when men and women could have cooperated and got the job done. In this instance, they should have told her that requirment BEFORE she got her HVAC certificate. The woman wasted her time in that company. I'm not sure of the field in general. Ran into her in a local bar months later and she was off to marry some rich john she had met in her 'new' career. Being of strong opinion.....to me, she sold out. Bah.
-I've heard that firefighters, in general, MUST be able to drag an adult male body out of a burning building in so many seconds, in several different fashions, etc, etc. Not many women can do it, but the opportunity's there to test it. I don't know very many women firefighters.

Women are not physically made to war. Rape is a particularly spiritually heinous crime. I think major ideal has been lost by women joining the fighting forces on the frontlines: when there is a war, isn't the idea to protect women and children to preserve procreation in general? The one thing that bothers me most is that the media is going to go ga-ga over covering these nasty, perverted details BECAUSE they're female. I have this nagging feeling that the men in our wars experience some similar spiritual offenses, but, I am sure that it's not covered in as great detail. Nor will it ever be. Some things just shouldn't be revisited to create a living hell for that person, whether male or female.

Personally, I can't stand the psychological pain. I can't see that reality on T.V. or listen to the bloody details on the radio. I have to be really prepared for it. I have my own reality that I'm trying to overcome. If it ever happens to me again, I will probably end up killing myself. I could never go to jail and survive it. I'm much too sensitive.

Personally, I know I am absolutely NOT worth a hill of beans re: physical labor during the devastation of my cycle on my back each month. I'd be useless at least 3 days out of the month. Bending over and reaching to scrub the bathtub absolutely puts me out of commission.

It is my spiritual belief that hand-to-hand combat and war on the frontline are best suited for the physically stronger. That, in general, would be men. Women should do what they do best... nurture. Sounds old-fashioned, but it makes sense to me.

And what about the overwhelming urge to protect that female on the front line and forget about the struggling male bud in the next foxhole? I think, in general, the reaction would be for the men to run to protect the female. Instead of aiming over their foxhole at incoming, they'd be running sideways over themselves to the adjacent foxholed female.

It completely boggles my mind that they are there in the first place. Feminists have gone too far. TOO FAR.


Peace
Sacchiridites
Cie

[Misu]

Warning: this is going to sound harsh, and I've rewritten this several times, and this is the most gentle way I could write it - I'm sorry, I'm doped up on cold meds and antibiotics and I've got a hell of a flu, so please don't take offense to what I say - just giving my reply to your opinion.

---

Sacchiridites, though I do respect your opinion and believe you have a right to it, your view on what women do best is sort of sexist. It's a gender-stereotype. Men can be just as nurturing as - and sometimes even more nurturing than - women, and women can be warriors just like men.

I do agree with you on the rape part - rape is a very real concern, moreso for female soldiers than for male soldiers. But male soldiers have their own problems to face when they go to war - such as intense torture, daily beatings, etc. And in some cases, male soldiers face rape as well. Although women are much more likely to be raped, men still face that possibility.

War is hell, and anyone who believes they have the balls to fight in it already has my respect. To blame feminists because of how MALES MIGHT REACT is wrong. I don't know any guys who've been on the front lines with a woman, but I'm sure you could ask any of the cops here, and they'll surely tell you that once their female counterparts earn their respect and they know they can handle themselves, they stop viewing them as "little women" and start viewing them as cops.

You know, as a feminist, I'm used to getting blamed for everything, especially for how other people react to situations women put themselves in - but to blame what happens to female pow's on feminists? That's going a bit far.

As a feminist, I want equal treatment. After going to the same schools, and earning the same grades, and paying the same tuition as my male counterparts, I want to be able to earn the same salary. This is something that we still cannot say occurs. If a woman decides to sacrifice her life for her country, I want her to earn the same respect and receive the same treatment. It's not my fault nor is it the ERA's fault that there are mysoginist people in this world. To insinuate that women are weak and say we need to be protected, and to blame feminists for giving women the courage to go ahead and do what they want to do irregardless of what it is they wish to do, is an insult. I'm sorry, Sacchiridites, but as a feminist, and as a woman, I'm a bit insulted. I don't feel it is the fault of the feminist movement that crap happens to women. It's the fault of the criminals who perpetrate these crimes, and it's society's fault for putting up with it.

[Sierra Mike]

The essence of this discussion, as I recall it, is that women are held to different training standards than men. If they cannot achieve the same training standards as their male counterparts--training standards designed to produce warriors capable of fighting on the current battlefield--they should not be awarded battlefield slots.

There are women Apache pilots, and that's true; but they have to train to a different physical standard than us male Apache drivers. This brings me back to my original point: if a woman in the front seat of an Apache can't haul me out of the back seat should we get our asses blasted out of the air, then I do not want her in my aircraft. And until that female aviator has to train to the same standards as the rest of us, then she should not be in the aircraft, or should be paired with another female.

But of course, the Army would be sued to hell and back for such segregation.

SM

[ShinyTop]

Cie 's opinion of what the feminists are doing should be heard. Feminists claim to be speaking for all females but if that is not the case we should hear that, too.

[melpomene]

Jessica is 19.

So...............her experiences in life are limited. Let alone her training time. Coming from a small home town. Thrown into the chaos of this war, head on. To endure what she has endured suggests strength of character here to me. Yet, her training and age ..................... big question mark.

She and SM are out in the middle of the Iraqi desert , blasting there way down some highway .................... imagine the extra stress on SM's shoulders, having her as a partner. No really. Think about it. It aint a picnic. You need to be able to rely on others in these situations. I dont know whether Jessica would be able to use a bit of experience or brain power to haul SM's ass out of a burning tank or bird.

Maybe she shouldnt have been there in the first place.

and.................

(i will get it for this)

she is too damn pretty and cute anyway

[Sierra Mike]

Lynch was in CSS, not battlefield duty. She wasn't 11B or anything like that, she just got sucked up into the badness and went down fighting, which is what I would expect of an American soldier, whether male or female.

My entire take on this is not at all sexist. If a woman can meet the same requirements as a man when it comes to combat arms, then give 'em the boots and march 'em out. Sydney could obviously do it, and so did Lynch, so it's not like there are no precedents. I say drop the double standards and make it survival of the fittest.

SM

[Misu]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
Cie 's opinion of what the feminists are doing should be heard. Feminists claim to be speaking for all females but if that is not the case we should hear that, too.

And I'm not saying she shouldn't express it - but I think it's unfair to blame feminists for how others react when a person happens to be female. Instead of blaming the perpetrators, she's blaming feminists - and in essence, she's blaming the women who are victimized. Instead of making the perpetrators of such deviant behavior responsible for their own actions, it's blaming the victim. And I disagree with that.

[Copzilla]

Originally posted by Misu
I don't know any guys who've been on the front lines with a woman, but I'm sure you could ask any of the cops here, and they'll surely tell you that once their female counterparts earn their respect and they know they can handle themselves, they stop viewing them as "little women" and start viewing them as cops.
I've never viewed women cops as anything but cops, regardless of whether they've proven themselves to me or not.

The missions are very different. In a domestic environment, there are many situations where a woman is much better suited for the job. Check it out! Sexism in reverse, eh? Not really. It's reality.

So women cops are a very definite benefit to the force. And even during SOME combat style ops, they're good to have. It's a different mission.

The military is a different ballgame. While the tactics of urban combat can be the same, and the training can be much the same, here is the caveat - <B>The benefits a woman brings to the police force do not translate to the same benefit on the field of combat.</B> Police are rarely called on to bring that potential primal rage to bear, in fact when they do, it's lawsuit city. Soldiers call on it constantly. Police aren't taken hostage, raped and tortured for days on end. Soldiers certainly may be.

Nobody's questioning a woman's capability to bring bravery, courage, and physical strength to the battlefield. I will just hold that to best utilize people in the services, we must understand that physiological differences will best suit some people for some more strenuous missions, while others need to assume other roles which are less physically intense, but just as necessary.

[Sacchiridites]

Originally posted by Misu
And I'm not saying she shouldn't express it - but I think it's unfair to blame feminists for how others react when a person happens to be female. Instead of blaming the perpetrators, she's blaming feminists - and in essence, she's blaming the women who are victimized. Instead of making the perpetrators of such deviant behavior responsible for their own actions, it's blaming the victim. And I disagree with that.

I hear ya, Misu.&nbsp; And you can personally kick me in the a$$ IRL if&nbsp; "in essence, [I'm] blaming the women who are victimized" via pointing out the downfall of one particular feminist idea or another.&nbsp; If the idea of feminism is to perpetuate victim status....count me out.&nbsp; (Maybe I read it wrong?)

I was hoping to get across that I blamed the HVAC company AND the woman for their choices in how they treated each other and themselves.&nbsp; You're right....it's up to ME to express to another person,&nbsp;company, or other entity&nbsp;how I want to be treated.&nbsp; Doesn't mean I'm going to get it.&nbsp; As for the firefighter example...simple laws of physics in action.

I suppose I&nbsp;picked on feminism IN THE CONTEXT OF MILITARY COMBAT and PHYSICAL EQUALITY because feminism is an extreme.&nbsp;

I do believe in equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity for education, training, etc., etc.&nbsp; I have been the subject&nbsp;of the 'glass ceiling' and sexual AND religious&nbsp;harassment in business.&nbsp;&nbsp;So, to me, these matters are important, especially as a single mother (by choice.)&nbsp;&nbsp;But, personally, I don't want my daughters to be drafted into any war.&nbsp;&nbsp;To me, I see what the feminists are doing as paving a road that just might&nbsp;lead to women being included in a draft! Count me (hell, they wouldn't take me anyhow) and my daughters out of it.&nbsp; I do not like the inclusive ideas that feminists put forth about women in general because they include ME in there.&nbsp; As I say, it is an extreme.&nbsp;

I agree with a LOT feminist ideas, but not this one:&nbsp;

"WHEREAS, the exclusion of women from combat in the modern military is a fraud only to perpetuate a second class status of women in the military; economically and educationally disadvantaged young women cannot use the armed services, which are the largest vocational training grounds in the U.S., in the same way young men can to help themselves; young men can join, get training, a possibility of pension and often veterans preferences in hiring when they leave the military; young women face higher entrance requirements and quotas limiting the numbers of women who get into the military -- and once they get in, women receive less training and fewer promotions; women are almost 11% of the military, but fill only .9% of the military's top 1000 officers' jobs and only about .8% of the top 15,000 senior enlisted positions; and ..."
http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/wim.html

Um, that blames a collective&nbsp;group.&nbsp; There are four branches of U.S. military, right?&nbsp; AF, Navy, Marines, Army.&nbsp;&nbsp;As I understand it, each branch has different requirements for acceptance.&nbsp; At 21, I was wondering what to do in my life.&nbsp; I took an AF entrance exam.&nbsp; Passed with flying colors.&nbsp; I was supposed to be an engineer or physicist.&nbsp; I had the opportunity in 1985.&nbsp; For them to say that the military excludes little girls that are economically or educationally disadvantaged is, to me, an erroneous&nbsp;blanket statement.&nbsp;&nbsp;ANYONE, male or female, may not be able to pass a military entrance exam if they didn't pay attention in or finish high school.&nbsp; And I find the idea that one doesn't get accepted because one doesn't grow up with a silver spoon in their mouth&nbsp;preposterous.&nbsp; I'm ALWAYS leery when I see statistics.&nbsp; These stats are from 1990 to boot.&nbsp; I always ask what is NOT included in those stats?&nbsp; What were the constants?&nbsp; What were the variables?&nbsp; It's the scientist in me.

IMHO the military would waste time and money sorting through which females would be eligible for combat should a draft come about that includes women of age.&nbsp; There simply aren't enough women physically, mentally&nbsp;or emotionally capable of it.&nbsp;

I can't accept the accusation that the U.S. government is trying to oppress women through excluding them from combat, even considering all of the above statistics like they say.&nbsp;&nbsp;I'd blame women like me who just don't have an interest in being included in such things.&nbsp; I'd rather stay home and do my part here, where I'm needed by the children and elderly.&nbsp; I will do what I do best:&nbsp; nurture, love, and support.

My ideas about men and women may seem archaic to you, but I will say this again.....women are the peace-keepers, the nurturers, the lovers and the mothers of our future.&nbsp; As such, they have NO place on the frontlines in combat.&nbsp; I understand the desire, the fervor, the willingness to be part of it, but it's just not realistic or beneficial to the human race.

Women are supposed to be helpmates to&nbsp;men.&nbsp; And the man is supposed to be a helpmate to the woman.&nbsp; If each gender attempts to stand completely alone, we are never going to be successful as a race or as a nation.&nbsp; Women can never replace or BE men. I am sick of seeing women trying to be something they're not, all the while denying their true nature, then hurting over it and blaming the man.&nbsp;

Peace,

Sacchiridites

Cie

[Sierra Mike]

I met many women in aviation--both enlisteds and officers--who very much wanted the likes of Pat Schroeder to "stay out of their boots." I presumed this to mean they didn't like the "help" folks such as Colorado's former brightest shining star was foisting upon them, and adding to the stress of serving in an institution that had been not so very long ago male-centric.

It's a no-brainer. Standardized training. Those who can't make it through don't get to stay.

SM

[cdw]

Well, I've read this whole thing and I'm still basically where I was at the get go. But, I do have to agree, that the training should be standardized. I believe it should be that for all services, including police and fire (I thought they already had that).
As for what men are "supposed" to be and women are "supposed" to be, well, I part with Cie here. I come from the view point that we are all individuals. You as a woman may be really good at nurturing, me, as a woman may not. I don't want to BE a man, I want to be who I am. And that's a blonde thinkin' country bumpkin from Long Island with a big mouth. If I want to fight on the front lines, and I can cut the mustard, then that's where I belong.

[Misu]

Originally posted by cydweeks
As for what men are "supposed" to be and women are "supposed" to be, well, I part with Cie here. I come from the view point that we are all individuals. You as a woman may be really good at nurturing, me, as a woman may not. I don't want to BE a man, I want to be who I am. And that's a blonde thinkin' country bumpkin from Long Island with a big mouth. If I want to fight on the front lines, and I can cut the mustard, then that's where I belong.

This is where I was getting at, but I'm really sick and its hard to put into words my thoughts right now (which is why it took so long yesterday to write what I did, and it came out harshly, to boot, which I didn't mean for it to).

Cie, I wouldn't kick your ass in real life - girl, please! You're entitled to your opinion, it's your right, and I wouldn't fight you to change that. But what Cyd said above is exactly what I, in my lousy way, was trying to get at.

There are several forms of feminism, and NOW is borderline militant. They started out a very good organization, but as you can see by their outdated information, they're more militant - I see them as trying to make women into men, rather than allowing each of us to be whoever we want to be.

I have never viewed myself as a girly girl. I've always been a tomboy. Kids never picked fights with me at school because they knew they'd get a beat down. Also, I'm not very nurturing - I don't like kids. I like my 6yo sister, and even she gets on my nerves to the point I am relieved when she leaves. When you say women are the nurturers and we're supposed to take care of kids and men, as a woma, I feel left out, because I personally do not identify with that ideal. I'm not the type to nurture - I do what needs to be done, but I suck at nurturing. When family members describe me, one of the first words out of their mouths is "cold and insenstive", even though I think I'm very sensitive in that I have empathy for people - I don't put up with self-victimization, and get real frustrated when people start with the "WHY ME?!?! POOOOOOR ME!!!" crap.

Back in highschool, I almost enlisted - I was the perfect candidate. Cop, you keep saying that women just don't have that "primal rage" inside them - that some of us might think we do, but when put up against a man, we don't. Well, I know I do, because I've been in situations that have proven that to me - situations which I typed out, and upon review realized it made me look totally psycho (which I'm not). I've had a pretty rough life, and have had to physically fight - a lot. It's only now, within the last 3 years or so, that my life has stopped being violent. When my back is put against the wall, I come out fighting like a tiger.

So who's to say that a woman can't do that? If she can pass the tests - what is the problem? If she feels in her heart of hearts that, to her, it's worth the risks, what is the problem?

I've never said I'm against standardized testing - but I do feel it shouldn't be the same for both sexes. It should be the top for men and the top for women, and often, that will overlap. I'm not saying the military should be 50-50, men and women. It should be the cream of the crop, and that is determined by the difficult physical tests. I don't know what the physical req's currently are - so I will ask: does each particular career have it's own physical req's, or is there just a blanket physical req, where all people, regardless of career path in the military, have to meet? Because, in my view, each career path should have it's own physical req's - if a woman is flying a helicopter, I feel she must be able to physically rescue a man and be able to pull him back in. If a woman is on the front lines, she must be able to drag a wounded man back to safety, etc. Is this already being tested for?

Cie, I understand your concern about women being drafted and being placed in danger - but as females, we're constantly in danger. Every 3 minutes, a woman is beaten - every 2 minutes, a woman is raped - and every 10 minutes, a little girl is molested - statistics such as these make me want to hide in my house and never leave! But sadly, this is the reality of living in this country as a female. We're not the sheltered gender - I feel we're more like the hunted gender. But we can't allow this fear to control us and influence the decisions we make. We cannot control how people treat us - and this is true of anyone, regardless of sex, or race, or age, etc.

<small>And personally, I believe a woman who is trained to fight such as a female soldier, feels empowered to defend herself, and makes herself less of a target for rape. I know that since I discovered my ability to fight, I have stopped being afraid of being raped again.</small>

The idea of feminism is not to perpetuate victim status - it's just to allow women the freedom to be who they want to be, not who society thinks they should be. If that means a soldier, right on. If that means a stay at home mom and president of the PTA and head of the Girl Scouts - right on.

<small>ok I worked on this post for 45 minutes and have reread it several times - i don't think i'm attacking anyone, but remember, i'm all doped up</small>

[Copzilla]

Originally posted by Misu
Cop, you keep saying that women just don't have that "primal rage" inside them - that some of us might think we do, but when put up against a man, we don't. Well, I know I do, because I've been in situations that have proven that to me - situations which I typed out, and upon review realized it made me look totally psycho (which I'm not). I've had a pretty rough life, and have had to physically fight - a lot. It's only now, within the last 3 years or so, that my life has stopped being violent. When my back is put against the wall, I come out fighting like a tiger.
Misu, the average Marine could swat you like a fly, no matter how angry you were. Any statement to the contrary is, IMO, just wishful thinking. A well trained male who is insanely angry is someone to be feared.

I'd bet Erika (as tough as she is) would admit it too, if asked, that most males in her unit could whip her tail pretty soundly in the pugel stick pit. I'm not trying to knock her abilities, I'm just making a point that overestimating onseself is a VERY dangerous thing to do when your life may be on the line. Knowing your limitations is as important as knowing your capabilities.

When I was in martial arts, I frequently fought female opponents. We had to hold back. Once in a while, a female with a higher belt would get brave, and have us come at her full bore. They would be shredded and call timeout in a matter of seconds, and inevitably be angry with the male for hurting her.

Misu, I know combat, I know what it's about beyond just a political viewpoint, and if someone wants to fight alongside me, they should have the same standards that are applied to me. If you want the sexes to be equal, then they need to be equal. If someone wants to risk my life by putting someone who is weaker beside me in order to satisfy a political agenda, well, that's just liable to create more than a combat capability problem. It can create a morale problem as well.

[Copzilla]

Oh, and no, you weren't attacking anyone, this is a good discussion! :)

[cdw]

But Cop, you must admit that there are men in the service who's ass could be whooped by a woman. All men in the service are not stronger than all women. Are you telling me that all men in the service could handle a 220 lb dead weight guy? Aren't there ANY scrawny men in the service? They all can do the same thing?
I don't see how that can be as all men are just as diversified in stature and nature as women are. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong....

[Sacchiridites]

Originally posted by Misu
So who's to say that a woman can't do that? If she can pass the tests - what is the problem? If she feels in her heart of hearts that, to her, it's worth the risks, what is the problem?.......

......I've never said I'm against standardized testing - but I do feel it shouldn't be the same for both sexes. It should be the top for men and the top for women, and often, that will overlap. I'm not saying the military should be 50-50, men and women. It should be the cream of the crop, and that is determined by the difficult physical tests. I don't know what the physical req's currently are - so I will ask: does each particular career have it's own physical req's, or is there just a blanket physical req, where all people, regardless of career path in the military, have to meet? Because, in my view, each career path should have it's own physical req's - if a woman is flying a helicopter, I feel she must be able to physically rescue a man and be able to pull him back in. If a woman is on the front lines, she must be able to drag a wounded man back to safety, etc. Is this already being tested for? ........

........The idea of feminism is not to perpetuate victim status - it's just to allow women the freedom to be who they want to be, not who society thinks they should be. If that means a soldier, right on. If that means a stay at home mom and president of the PTA and head of the Girl Scouts - right on.


Misu, I sure hope you feel better soon. :(&nbsp; You're doing a great job at expressing yourself, I think. Thanks for the info re: NOW.... unfortunately, they're a feminist group, and, as such are speaking out feminist ideas.. no matter how militant or extreme, what they want is EQUALITY for women in the military, including women in combat. Isn't that the gist of the feminist movement? EQUALITY? In ALL respects? Woman wants that firefighter job? Woman should have the opportunity to prove she can pull a man out of burning building. Woman wants to fight on the front lines... woman should have that opportunity to do it. Some things should NOT be so, IMO. And I'm talking specifically about war and hand-to-hand combat between men and women.

Cyd, Misu... I know that I have met many women who aren't nurturers. And I've met many men that were nurturers. I think the degree of violence in our lives and how we've dealt with it can certainly affect our nurturing capability. We're all capable of nurturing. We're all capable of violence.

-Can't say I've ever been in an all-out altercation with a woman. My mother has beat me in her anger, my sister has slapped me, my daughter has shoved me, my best friend has slapped me. I either left or challenged them and they didn't hit or shove me again. AND we've always been able to work it out verbally.
-Can't say I've ever been in an all-out altercation with a man. My father used to beat me in his anger. Was terribly abused and literally hunted when I was 17 by a 24 yr old man. Was shoved, stepped on, and stalked by a once live-in boyfriend. Was punched just once by the last **** I called a boyfriend. Been raped. Been drug raped and photographed. I left the scene. No talking about it there.

Being violent or having an aggressive nature doesn't mean you're good in combat. Being stronger and in control of your anger makes a better front-line combatant. I know this from working in a Philipino Martial Arts school and learning the controlled Arnis de Mano form. Sparring was intense and kept separated as far as gender goes for good reasons. Keep in mind that these martial arts are for self-defense, not attacking in a war situation.

NURTURERS:
It has been my experience that women, in general, ARE the peace-keepers and the nurturers BECAUSE they are mothers. How the hell else has the human race survived? Carrying and delivering the babies then just handing them over to the men? Men don't have breastmilk! They handed the babies to nursemaids and midwives and grandmothers and aunts and sisters...... There are women that are like bitches that roll over on their newborn pups and kill them, or leave the new pups to starve. It's just not in them. There are men that kill their own families by physically abusing them. It's just not in them to protect or nurture a family. But to say a person is a good soldier or a good businessperson because he's/she's not a nurturing personality? Nah, I don't buy it. In the end, it's out of balance and the desired goal is lost in the lack of distribution of power. The overbearing, cold, cruel and ruthless are NOT going to win a war that could benefit everyone. They're only out for themselves and to weild their own power.
Just because one (male or female) might be have been physically abused or psychologically damaged to the point of not being able to nurture another human being very well, doesn't mean one is not nurturing by nature. Even Saddam Hussein had a bio-mom. Don't we tend to at least partially blame the lack of love or nurture on the MOTHER's part for the way people are so sick, cruel and cold? Maybe that's not fair, but it's reality. Mother is the first thing that the child knows in-utero.

PEACE-KEEPERS:
You can't tell me honestly that women, in general, don't fight with their mouths, not their fists. Women are the most spiteful, nasty, downright lethal creatures when it comes to mental and emotional abuse via words and inflection. I really don't see little girls physically play-fighting that much; they scream at each other. I do see little boys play-fighting a lot. They ruin furniture and houses and yards and ... hehehe. It's the testosterone. It's biological truth. It's meant to be like that. And I'm not following some ancient culture of it MUST be that Sally plays with dolls and Jimmy plays with guns kind of stereotype. In the same token, women, in general, TALK a lot. In most cases, women are able to TALK out the problems instead of going straight to fisticuffs. I don't think it's a built-in stereotype. I know it's been my observation and experiences.

MOTHERS:
I think what's bothering you, Misu and Cyd, is how inclusive I am in stating this. That NO woman belongs in combat, not even the strongest, meanest psycho-bitch you can find.....is probably a bit disturbing as it's coming from someone that normally doesn't care for extreme statements. Yeah, I'm being inclusive and sticking to it. War is an extreme. Any woman that has the potential of carrying or benefiting the future of the human race as a mother figure has NO place on the front lines in combat. I don't care how rough she is. I don't care how big she is. Women, in general, as a gender CANNOT and NEVER will be able to do everything that, in general, as a gender, men can do physically. Women can, in general, bear children and raise them.

I can fix a car (well, Mopar is my fav), roof a house, frame a house, run copper plumbing, run PVC plumbing, install a 6-ft privacy fence with gates, lift and carry my own weight easily, walk 20 miles, climb a tree, shoot a gun (accurately, too, depending on the gun and my experience), get into tiny places a normal-sized male can't, drop kick a normal sized man, dig a garden, etc. I was a tomboy. I was a swimming champ. I was a gymnast. Big deal. I can do something a man can't.. .. I can carry and bring a new life into the world. (I can also raise that child to be nurturing, intelligent and a benefit to society without a man around - but I'd rather have the man around.)&nbsp;

Go ahead, standardize the tests. If that is done, the standards that exist now will probably have to be lowered because women in general cannot always meet them, right? But, if standards are lowered, I can see a sacrifice of the brute strength of our military if it does come to war and hand-to-hand combat. I like Misu's idea about tests being 'curved' to suit the job, but, ultimately, if you're called to duty....and it's war... you better be able to meet the requirements of the front line. That's why we have a military in the first place.

Cyd, can you really get out there on the front lines and, unwillingly distract the guy in the next foxhole to his death? Because I will guarantee you there's a great chance he's going to be overwhelmed with the urge to protect you, the woman, and give his life over yours. I don't think it's going to be because you're his chum. Can you knowingly take that chance? Really? I couldn't.

I know that women in hand-to-hand combat with men is just not right, whether in a war or in a domestic situation. I could be namby-pamby and say it doesn't matter to me who fights, as long as it's not me out there. I'm not like that. It DOES matter to me. So, I say, let's send the MAN best suited for the job to fight another MAN. If it were ALL women, I'd probably be singing a different tune.

Peace,

Sacchiridites

Cie

P.S. A friend once told me.... not many people think as you do or agree on the many things you have ideas about. I took it as a compliment......not because I like to debate or argue, but because it means I'm still thinking.

[cdw]

Cyd, can you really get out there on the front lines and, unwillingly distract the guy in the next foxhole to his death?
I would never be on the front lines. But I will say that if I were, and the guy next to me was "unwillingly distracted", I'd be the first to bop him in the head because he isn't doing HIS job.

If that is done, the standards that exist now will probably have to be lowered because women in general cannot always meet them, right?
I for one am not suggesting that the standards should be lowered and don't agree that they should. I can't speak for Misu, but I don't think she would suggest that either.

NO woman belongs in combat
I respect your opinion, but we will have to agree to disagree. While I myself would not find it a thing I would want to do, or probably even could do, I don't think I have the right to tell another woman who does want to be there, or make the service her career choice, that she CAN'T, BECAUSE she's a woman. If she can meet or beat the standards then the very best to her. And I would value her contribution to securing the USA just as I would a man.

I'm not a feminist IMO. I think the NOW organization started out as a good one and then went over the top. I don't belong to "women's" groups. But I must say that without those before me who fought for my rights as a PERSON who happens to be female deserve all the respect that I can give them.

[Fiona]

Originally posted by Sacchiridites
[size=2] Cyd, can you really get out there on the front lines and, unwillingly distract the guy in the next foxhole to his death? Because I will guarantee you there's a great chance he's going to be overwhelmed with the urge to protect you, the woman, and give his life over yours. I don't think it's going to be because you're his chum. Can you knowingly take that chance? Really? I couldn't. WHOA! I've read this and read this, and my head shurts so I read it again... I didn't want to comment on this thread anymore... BUT
I've got to say as much as I try I can't let this paragraph go...

Distract to his death? Distract how... sexually? If he can be distracted by me... I can be distracted by him... what's the difference? Either way we'd be in the heat of the moment (no pun intended, and have a job to do... (I don't get it) You are talking about protecting? I don't get it. I hope to HELL he'd have an urge to protect me... just as I'd have the same urge to protect him... "Got your back" comes to mind...
Not arguin with YOU Sac... i generally value your thoughts and opinions and agree... I really don't get what you might be trying to say... :)

(I used to thin women shouldn't be in WAR situations because of rape and things of that nature... I have since changed my mind... women are stronger than I gave them credit for. Men can be raped too... yadda yadda)

(I can think of as many women I know, as men, who would protect me with their life. However I can think of more men than women who wouldn't! not making a point, just interesting...

[Neo Mara]

Originally posted by fiona_campbell
Distract to his death? Distract how... sexually? If he can be distracted by me... I can be distracted by him... what's the difference?

There is no difference. That's the point. Sex, however it manifests itself, is something you do not need on the battlefeild. That's one reason I don't support women (or homosexuals for that matter) in combat. I have nothing against them, but if only for that reason and that reason alone, you can't allow women in combat. Eventually, it will get someone needlessly killed. Given that, you must make your force of entirely men or entirely women. I think the choice is obvious.

[cdw]

I've got to say as much as I try I can't let this paragraph go...

Yeah, it really didn't give much credit to either person in the foxholes, IMO.

[Fiona]

Originally posted by Neo Mara
make your force of entirely men I fear for the livestock ;)

truthfully I see the logic in your theory... I just don't think I can agree. :) Politely, of course.


(although... all women... Amazons... YEAH! I can handle that!)

[ethics]

Originally posted by Neo Mara
There is no difference. That's the point. Sex, however it manifests itself, is something you do not need on the battlefeild. That's one reason I don't support women (or homosexuals for that matter) in combat. I have nothing against them, but if only for that reason and that reason alone, you can't allow women in combat. Eventually, it will get someone needlessly killed. Given that, you must make your force of entirely men or entirely women. I think the choice is obvious.

Your post aside, welcome to the forum. :)

[cdw]

all women... Amazons

rofl We'll just flash the enemy....have them dazed...and shoot the shit out of 'em.

Edit: the woman's version of "upper body strength" rofl

[Neo Mara]

Originally posted by fiona_campbell
I fear for the livestock ;)

truthfully I see the logic in your theory... I just don't think I can agree. :) Politely, of course.


(although... all women... Amazons... YEAH! I can handle that!)

Meaning combat forces. I don't think I made that clear. I've served with some great women and I think they are perfectly able to serve in non-combat roles, but I would never want them on the front lines.



Originally posted by ethics
Your post aside, welcome to the forum. :)

Thanks :D

[Fiona]

Originally posted by cydweeks
Edit: the woman's version of "upper body strength" rofl rofl

Cyd, did I ever tell you I loved you? :love:


rofl

[cdw]

Neo... welcome to the forum.
And the gays? Are they to be relegated to certain non-combat roles too or they shouldn't be there at all?

[cdw]

Cyd < singing ... If I only had a brain. :)

[Neo Mara]

Originally posted by cydweeks
Neo... welcome to the forum.
And the gays? Are they to be relegated to certain non-combat roles too or they shouldn't be there at all?

Thanks.

As far as combat (and proctology), no they should not be there. As far as the rest of the service is concerned, I don't really see were it would be an issue. *shrugs* They mostly say in the Navy anyway :P

[EricaZ98]

Well.. to answer Steve's question a few pages back... Yes, I do know that there are plenty of men in the military that could and did beat my ass at the puguls, but I also beat a few down myself.

And to address the question about sex on the battlefield...regardless of gender or sexual orientation, your mind isnt on sex when fighting on the frontlines, and if it is, your ass shouldnt be there... I could care less if you are a lesbian who likes to screw animals... sex on the battlefield should be the furthest thing from the military personnel's mind... and generally at war time it is. So I see no problem with a woman wanting to be there if she wants, I mean, Lynch was a supply clerk who ended up in the front lines because they offer support. Think what you may, but that girl is a hero of mine. Damn strond willed woman she is....

[Sierra Mike]

Do you mean this Steve, or another Steve? I dun remember saying anything about pugils...

SM

[Sacchiridites]

My concern with the subject at hand here is that it begs the question should women be allowed in the military AT ALL.
Because if one is in the military, one may be called to front-line duty. That is part of the obligation one should keep if there is a war...male, female, canine or feline or sexual orientation..... doesn't matter.

In specifically saying women should not be on the front lines in combat, I have simultaneously said that women should not be enlisting in the active armed forces at all. Wish it weren't like that... but it is so, I'm afraid. Black or white....there is no gray area for the choosing, here. You're either in ALL the way or out ALL the way.

Yep, nice to think you'll be sitting behind a desk or in a helicopter flying around for fun and learning all your military career, even if there should there be battle. But, then, that's where Civil Service comes in...government contracts and the like. There are many ways to serve outside the active military here in the U.S., no matter gender or orientation.

Mmm, I think this is my last post on this thread. For what it's worth, my mouth is now closed. :)

Peace,
Sacchiridites
Cie

[mikepd]

It was Copz who talked about pugils a bit further back in the thread.

[Robert Harris]

Interesting thread. I have not participated because I am easily distracted by even thinking about sexual distraction -- which I think is a real potential sissue.

[EricaZ98]

Cop .. Steve.. whatever... lol

[IamZed]

No matter what anyone says Syd, you keep that hero. Close.

[Robert Harris]

On the issue of sexual distraction, enough theorizing and speculating. A snippet of some interest about actual experience on a ship of the line:

Fraternization is prohibited aboard the ship. Nonetheless, since the carrier left its home port of Everett, Wash., in July, as many as 20 female sailors have been taken off the ship because of pregnancy, said Cmdr. Gerry Goyins, the ship's senior medical officer. Goyins said there was a cluster of pregnancies early in the deployment but the pace slowed after senior female enlisted crew members warned young female sailors that getting pregnant is "not what sailors do."

He said that the Lincoln's pregnancy rate was considered low for an aircraft carrier and that some ships report a dozen each month. The Navy requires pregnant sailors and aviators to be removed from any ship that is more than three hours from obstetrical care, Goyins said. The women are not discharged but are assigned shore duty.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A27504-2003Mar14&notFound=true

[Sacchiridites]

http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0422gaymilitary.html
This in from Dayton, Ohio.

[Robert Harris]

While we are debating this issue here it seems that it has been mostly resolved. Seems that there were women in combat positions in Iraq as well as support positions -- on the ground and in the air. Some interesting items in the papers in recent days.

A NICHOLAS KRISTOF column discusses the pros and cons succinctly, comes down in favor. Column opens with this.

The only time I saw Iraqi men entirely intimidated by the American-British forces was in Basra, when a cluster of men gaped, awestruck, around an example of the most astoundingly modern weapon in the Western arsenal.

Her name was Claire, and she had a machine gun in her arms and a flower in her helmet.

Full column at: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/25/opinion/25KRIS.html

Then we have the story of a pilot whose A-10 plane was hit but who safely made it back to Kuwait. I love the name she uses.

Flying over the battle for Baghdad in an anti-tank plane that's so slow and ugly it's commonly known as the Warthog, an Air Force captain known as "K.C." faced the moment every pilot dreads.

KC stands for "Killer Chick."

Story at: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/World/iraq_warthog030412.html

An interesting overview story entitled "WOMEN WARRIORS" is at:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june03/women_4-17.htmlWhile

And here is a photo Killer Chick at work.