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.
I agree, but not many women will meet those standards IMO. I also feel that they are more vulnerable to giving up information if captured unless they enjoy rape.
You don't think men get raped when they're captured? You are very naive...
I think this has more to do with earning the Combat Infantry Badge that is almost mandatory for promotion to higher levels in the officer corps than anything else.
The fuss about physical strength is just that - a fuss. So long as a woman can carry a gun and enough ammo for the job let her do it if she wants. Besides a firefight in a broom closet or an abandoned building is more about cunning and ferocity than being able to carry a hundred pounds of stuff.
Move light, move fast and aim every shot even if you have a 12 gauge scattergun. Don’t stop until all the enemy are dead.
I think this has more to do with earning the Combat Infantry Badge that is almost mandatory for promotion to higher levels in the officer corps than anything else.
The fuss about physical strength is just that - a fuss. So long as a woman can carry a gun and enough ammo for the job let her do it if she wants. Besides a firefight in a broom closet or an abandoned building is more about cunning and ferocity than being able to carry a hundred pounds of stuff.
Move light, move fast and aim every shot even if you have a 12 gauge scattergun. Don’t stop until all the enemy are dead.
Yes, if you are talking about a nice, safe, secure front. An area where you patrol, then return at night and can stow your weapons and gear. Now tell the same woman to hump 90+ lbs of equipment, for 12-14 days, no showers, no bathrooms, no resupply. No lipstick, no hairspray, no nothing. Yes, you MAY find a few who can meet those physical requirements; very few. And, like it or not, the males are going to be left picking up the slack.
I don't care what politician, you, or anyone else says: Those women ARE going to receive special treatment when run through training. They are going to have special facilities, food, and special treatment from the training staff. NO ONE is going to want to have some woman complaining the "Sergeant" was mean too me, because I am a woman. Because of this, you are going to have unqualified women passing through the selection process. It will happen, its going to happen, and no one is going to care. UNTIL, someone dies in a combat zone which will occur too.
Then what will happen is a bunch of males, who were in training with this woman will say she wasn't fit to be in the unit anyway. We had our misgivings. We told everyone and no one listened. No one will believe them, of course, and will blame them and call them liars.
If you want to make a special unit, full of women, who do as you wrote? Great. More power to them. However, to put females into line infantry and special forces units is going to be a mistake.
I assure you I have no penis envy, but if imagining me that way is how you cope when someone threatens your masculinity then go for it; doesn't affect my feelings at all.
I agree that male humans are naturally bigger and stronger. Take 100 random males and 100 random females and, almost without exception, the biggest males will be bigger and stronger than the biggest females, plus the average male will be bigger and stronger than the average female. Because "the male" is naturally bigger and stronger, "the male" will always dominate the world's military units. Anyone with any knowledge of humans should agree with this. But what you are neglecting is the fact that there is a massive variation in size and strength within the genders, and the biggest females will be far bigger and stronger than the average males.
I agree with the bolded except to say that only a very tiny percentage of even the strongest, largest females will be the physical equal in terms of strength or other measures of athletic performance to men who are at elite levels of athletic performance and fitness.
Quote:
I'm currently a middle-age male far from in the best shape, but even in my football-playing weight-lifting prime I had no delusions about my ability to pass the Navy Seal physical fitness tests (no chance whatsoever). I also had no delusions that the biggest and strongest female athletes could kick my butt even then.
I was also a football player and wrestler and weightlifter; in my prime I never encountered a single woman who could outlift or outwrestle me. I am sure there were many who were faster, though.
Quote:
If a female thinks she can pass the physical and mental tests required to join ANY military unit (unaltered from the same tests that males must pass), she should be allowed to try. If she passes, she's tough enough and she's in.
Yes! Barring women from even trying to get in deprives all of them the opportunity to pass; very few will make it, but those who will are assets to our military.
Quote:
If you think all women will crack under battle pressure, I urge to you to go to the delivery ward of a hospital and say that to women in labor. If you try, I guarantee that before you leave YOU'LL be the one with penis envy because you'll no longer have one.
In their own way, women are as tough as or tougher than men.
[quote=SourD;30079386]I agree, but not many women will meet those standards IMO. I also feel that they are more vulnerable to giving up information if captured unless they enjoy rape.[/quote]
Male prisoners of war cannot be raped?
If rape was an effective tool to get a prisoner to spill the beans, there would have been no need for all the other techniques.
Women as good in combat as men? Sure, now let's have them compete against each other in sports like boxing, football, MMA, basketball and everything else. I'm sure they'll fit right in.
I was also a football player and wrestler and weightlifter; in my prime I never encountered a single woman who could outlift or outwrestle me. I am sure there were many who were faster, though.
There are anatomical and physiological difference between men an women. Prior to puberty there is much less difference between the two sexes. Actually, little to none at certain childhood ages, and girls begin physically sprouting and physically maturing before boys.
So, it is with small children playing football that a lot of people like to point to and say, "Look, sex does matter! girls can play tackle football with boys and so too can women with men then."
The logic is fallacious. Especially given--as you pointed out--past a certain age woman simply are not built to compete with high level male athletes in sports like the NFL. These men are huge. Even average and smaller men aren't built to play many of those NFL positions.
A woman that could compete in the NFL would almost certainly look like a half-man. Just the way it is. And yes... there are some women that look like half-men out there.
I kind of feel about the infantry like I feel about boxing. I have novice experience in both. But both taught me some things. In particular about my own weaknesses. I kind of feel it is good in all people going through something like that for simple fact most men and women have a bloated opinion about their own capabilities. Women in particular have more mouth than a__.
When I was in SOI we ran--not jogged--everywhere, and not on paths often, and we usually were running in full combat gear. Let women in. Their passing or failure is not the issue. Let them experience the sheer hell of "being a man." Let them sleep on the cold ground and conduct patrols in the cold and rain in their soaking wet socks and clothes. Feminism is about being happy not about living miserable. So, I doubt 99% of women will stick with infantry. Can you say the word: MALINGER.
That will be their parachute out just as it is for a small portion of men thrown into the infantry. Constant light duty and some "problem" that won't go away.
If women can pass the standards without them changing, I don't see a problem with it. I don't know any women that want to. I don't. The Canadian military wasn't barraged by women seeking combat duties when they opened up to women. A slim minority are willing and able to serve in these roles. They want to contribute, if they can do it, let them.
I think it is safe to say, if they maintain the same standards of training without lowering it in any form, most women will not be able to qualify. If a woman qualifies and makes it through the training, she should be given the opportunity to serve where ever needed in combat.
Most married men can assure you that women are quite capable of fighting when inspired to do so.
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.
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.
