women in combat

[peat moss]

This thread reminds me of the Fire Dept. hiring practices . Pick any city in North America you see it every day. On a lighter note only let them fight when their
P. M. 's . They would kick ass.



Edit : This is not the thoughts of filesharing.com. only one mans feeble atempt at humour.

[vidcc]

It all boils down to not being male or female but individuals

who would you rather fight alongside..
this woman?



or this man




;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

this man ?




or this woman




remember it is for a combat situation

[Busyman]

So you've not witnessed "equal rights" taken to the same absurd lengths that I have, I take it?

Again-I agree women should have the opportunity to serve their country, and yes, it is absurd to have lesser physical standards for field-training.

Nonetheless, the demand for female access to all areas of employment (regardless of the physical inequality we all seem to agree about) carries the day.

The situation you seem to be favoring does not exist, vid.

I would just leave it at this...

The very few alpha females would be able to make it in the military I presume.

[vidcc]

Nonetheless, the demand for female access to all areas of employment (regardless of the physical inequality we all seem to agree about) carries the day.

The situation you seem to be favoring does not exist, vid.

but that's what we are debating. We debate lots of situations that don't exist. Take the equal rights for gay marriage debate....equal rights don't exist.

I'm sure there are some feminist extremists that feel that women should benefit from preferential treatment, but they like the extremist that have taken over the republican party are not the norm.

[Busyman]

but that's what we are debating. We debate lots of situations that don't exist. Take the equal rights for gay marriage debate....equal rights don't exist.

I'm sure there are some feminist extemists that feel that women should benifit from preferential treatment, but they like the extremist that have taken over the republican party are not the norm.

This one's pretty easy.

Equal rights means equal testing and training.

The fact is there will be very few women that join the military and can pass the training necessary for combat. It wouldn't even be a blip.

[vidcc]

This one's pretty easy.

Equal rights means equal testing and training.

Just what do you think we have been saying from post number 1 ?

The fact is there will be very few women that join the military and can pass the training necessary for combat. It wouldn't even be a blip.

So because the amount is small that means they shouldn't bother permitting it and go to the lengths our government is going to to actually stop it?

[vidcc]

Vid-

My point is that the "alpha females" Busyman refers to exist, and, I suppose, should be allowed to qualify for combat duty; however-

the same as "alpha males". Women are raised to be "feminine" and don't tend to have the macho attitude men have. If raised in a different environment I doubt we would be having this debate. If all girls were raised as boys are the level of "girlieness" would be significantly lower

Those who choose to qualify should not have the option (as some who support "equality" propose) to then opt out of combat, such option being bandied about constantly by those who deign to opine on the matter, but which crowd would also be appalled at the relative lack of "alpha females", and thus demand the lowered standards.

We both know I agree on this. I am for EQUAL rights, not special treatment.

Having said all that, yes, time in here is often spent dealing in "what if", "pie-in-the-sky" scenarios, which I personally find to be an affliction of the reality-averse among us.

Better to debate realistically, and burn a fatty when you are done.

Oh you are just as guilty as anyone else..... I trust that you will no longer place your views on abortion....because your view is not the reality. don't try to distance yourself from the habit. I even remember you posting about this being an opinion board......
What is unrealistic about debating equality?... is the subject pie in the sky because you choose to use examples of extremist views to counter?

When I post it's my view, not the view of the most extreme person you can quote.

[Rat Faced]

There is a bill going through congress at the moment that has a part that would ban women from serving in direct ground combat. This would mean that there are certain units that women could not serve in.

In this age where equality is being fought for is this fair or the right thing to do?

I do believe that some women can do such jobs better than some men and my view is that we have a totally voluntary military so if women wish to engage in combat they shouldn't be prevented from doing so providing they meet the same standards the men have to.


I will add that although I believe that many women are physically and mentally able to do such jobs I sometimes feels that they should not be doing them. For example we shouldn't have female guards at male prisons and on the flip side we shouldn't have male guards in women's prisons.

I have no problem in the theory.

However, its been shown that where a unit is mixed its moral is high but its effective use is lowered. This IS NOT due to the women in the unit, its due to the men. They will delay and break formation to "save" a women, more than they will to "save" a man; whereby they shouldnt do it at all until after the battle/firefight.

On saying this, it's only the case of Infantry where this is a major problem.

You must remember too that ALL troops are infantry 1st and formost. They are trained as Gunners, Sappers, Tankies etc etc AFTER Basic Training, and they can ALL be called upon to fullfill the role of Infantry if needed.

I would have no trouble with women having their own units in a combat role. They are, it must be said, emotionally stronger than men and have a higher pain tollerence in general. They make excellent Troops, and most combat roles can be done by women.

I have no problems at all in mixed units during peacetime, which cuts down the training costs somewhat, and makes squaddies remember what they're willing to fight for...

[Snee]

You know, Viet Kong did some damage back in the day, and I bet most of them wouldn't have qualified for the US army when it comes to fitness. Too small and undernourished.

Maybe women would be excellent in units employing unorthodox methods of warfare. A small stature makes for better sneaking around and such. They might not be as big or as strong, but that doesn't mean that there's no way they couldn't excel if the army explored all options.

[vidcc]

I would have no trouble with women having their own units in a combat role. .

Now there is an interesting idea. I wonder what the reaction would be to their battle successes and how many successes would be undone by just one "loss" or "inappropriate action"
I feel they would be subjected to unfair scrutiny.