Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-10-2010, 05:56 PM
 
1,342 posts, read 2,159,190 times
Reputation: 1037

Advertisements

I think one of the main reasons we likely won't see mixed fighting units is that it'll expose the reality that women can't do the same jobs as men, despite what feminists keep telling themselves. Currently the military coddles women in the form of separate standards. However, in the real world of military combat things like the innate differences in genders actually matters. For example, upper body strength. If a 200+lb troop gets shot, how is Ms Military at 130lbs going to drag the wounded soldier to safety, without help, and under fire? It's the same reason there's not a lot of female firefighters. There are a few women out there who can hack it, but they're exceedingly rare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2010, 02:38 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,494 posts, read 4,541,382 times
Reputation: 3026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutz76 View Post
I think one of the main reasons we likely won't see mixed fighting units is that it'll expose the reality that women can't do the same jobs as men, despite what feminists keep telling themselves. Currently the military coddles women in the form of separate standards. However, in the real world of military combat things like the innate differences in genders actually matters. For example, upper body strength. If a 200+lb troop gets shot, how is Ms Military at 130lbs going to drag the wounded soldier to safety, without help, and under fire? It's the same reason there's not a lot of female firefighters. There are a few women out there who can hack it, but they're exceedingly rare.
The answer to some of those situations can be equipment that suit women well in areas and situations where they perform best. Some of those areas can actually combat type duties where they may be able to provide better service. It is a matter of having an open mind. Many men, and women, keep thinking with a tunnel vision as to how to do combat. Inovative people can look how they can best use the resource available instead of saying she does not have strength, not tall enough, etc. To me society still have not opened up their mind more to it. Women in the past have performed in combat with successful results in other countries. Maybe American women have become too soft for combat duty besides the mentality that we do not want them there because that is a men's job? That could be the case.
In history there have been women that could carry big loads on their back to the front lines and even take over for men when they were not available due to battle loses, take care. A good book to read on history of women in combat is "Women Warrior". It covers history from pretty much recorded time and across the world, take care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,284,822 times
Reputation: 15285
Instead of performing complicated gyrations to wrench the military into a female- and gay-friendly institution, why not restrict military service to only women and gay men? Let them carry a little responsibility for a change instead of whining about how tough things are. It'll give the rest of us a break from having to constantly fret about their full participation as citizens and their self-fulfillment.

Besides, who knows? Maybe with an army like that, we'll get involved in fewer unjustified, unwinnable wars. And the uniforms will get classed up, no doubt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Crossville, TN
1,327 posts, read 3,672,867 times
Reputation: 1017
One thing that hasn't been brought up is the menstrual cycle. Wouldn't this be a distraction in a combat situation when you are bleeding all over the place. Do you say excuse me I have to change my feminine product? Or would they be excused during this period. Maybe if they were forced to have a hysterectomy they would be allowed.
I truly believe with of course some very minor exceptions women do not have the same physical strength as a man of the same size. That's why women seem more lethal, because we have to fight dirty and smart to beat a man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 01:37 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,284,822 times
Reputation: 15285
Quote:
Originally Posted by LABART View Post
One thing that hasn't been brought up is the menstrual cycle. Wouldn't this be a distraction in a combat situation when you are bleeding all over the place. Do you say excuse me I have to change my feminine product? Or would they be excused during this period. Maybe if they were forced to have a hysterectomy they would be allowed.
I truly believe with of course some very minor exceptions women do not have the same physical strength as a man of the same size. That's why women seem more lethal, because we have to fight dirty and smart to beat a man.
Smart and dirty have nothing to do with it. After all, it takes very little strength to pull the trigger of an M-16. What it does take is a willingness to disregad all of one's scruples and willfully take another human's life. I know. I've been there.

I wonder if we really want our women to become inured to the kind of callousness this requires -- to make our life-givers, in effect, learn to become life-takers: because that's really the consequence of Rep. Sanchez's proposal.

Personally, I find it offensive -- both in what it says about us a people and as a culture: that we are willing, in the interest of one version of gender equality, to make our mothers and daughters into killers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 04:22 AM
 
3,669 posts, read 6,862,397 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
And the uniforms will get classed up, no doubt.
Nice but I disagree with your general sentiment.

On a side note, battle uniforms in time do get updated, when that happens people become nostalgic and with more time those battle uniforms are transformed into dress uniforms, for official ceremonies, etc..., so it is hard to imagine but one day if the pattern stays the camo BDU's worn today will become their dress uniform.

The height of military fashion was the 1700's I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 05:31 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,712 posts, read 13,439,515 times
Reputation: 4317
Quote:
Originally Posted by LABART View Post
One thing that hasn't been brought up is the menstrual cycle. Wouldn't this be a distraction in a combat situation when you are bleeding all over the place. Do you say excuse me I have to change my feminine product? Or would they be excused during this period. Maybe if they were forced to have a hysterectomy they would be allowed.
I truly believe with of course some very minor exceptions women do not have the same physical strength as a man of the same size. That's why women seem more lethal, because we have to fight dirty and smart to beat a man.
Well, it seemed to work for the Russians in World War II rather well considering they had an entire unit comprised of nothing but female snipers. Not to mention, Lyudmila Pavlichenko who single-handedly had 309 confirmed kills including 36 enemy snipers.

Or, perhaps we could go to the Vietnam Conflict in which the NVA utilized women as both combat soldiers and snipers while we in the U.S. had no problems with the South Vietnamese Army utilizing their own females - some of which fought side by side with our own American men.

A broader look at history, both modern and ancient, will show that numerous armies through human civilization have utilized women in combat and many of them performed extraordinarily well. Take, for example, the women of ancient Persia who often comprised entire armies and were often battlefield commanders.

If you want to make an argument about the current status of our military and women in combat roles, utilizing menstrual cycles as an argument is a ridiculous argument.

There are scant historical reasons why women should be restricted from serving in combat roles in our military. In fact, during the war in Iraq (which I was in) and the war in Afghanistan (which I supported but was never sent to) women were being utilized in combat roles on an almost daily basis - although their job code was often classified as "non-combative."

The real argument should be how the U.S. military has derived its restriction on women in combat roles. I believe an in-depth look at this will show that the military uses outdated psychological research mixed with a 19th century Puritanical view of women and how their roles in society are applied. In fact, I would argue that the military (with some of its' stances being dictated by Congress) has no empirical research, scientific evidence, or even historical precedence to explain why women should not be allowed in combat. In fact, their arguments against women in combat roles often seem speculative, unproven and inconsistent with the way many other modern and historical armies view(ed) and utilize(d) women in combat roles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 12:22 PM
 
1,719 posts, read 4,175,040 times
Reputation: 1299
Again...no problem with a woman being a sniper. But, a grunt? A grunt with a hundred pound pack on their back who might have to pick up their wounded buddy? Get real.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:05 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top