So, we should keep women off the front lines because of how MEN have been conditioned to react to them? Not because they can't do the job, but because MEN can't handle them doing the job.
K
Andee
Should WOMEN Serve in Combat???
by JT 41 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
nilfun
while your point about men being raped is true, would you not agree that if 3 male soldiers were captured by 30 men, the issue of sexually abuse would be less likely than if 3 blonds were picked up?
I don't know if I can agree with that, JT...since rape, as I understand it, is about violence & power/humiliating the victim. Many men have been humiliated in this fashion, but choose not to talk about it, because of the expectation that they as men, should have been able to prevent it somehow...there's a perception (not mine) that women are weaker and so cannot fend off an attacker, while men have no excuse...and this can keep male survivors of rape silent. And I guess that's why folks don't really envision (shudder) male P.O.W.s being at risk for rape. I see nothing wrong with exploring these questions... BTW...why three blondes? Are blondes the epitome of femininity or helplessness? (Just trying to understand why you chose three blondes for your example... )
-
Abaddon
LDH;
1. Men invoke the "Physical Strength Standard" when it suits them. The last time we had professional movers come in and move our belongings, I physically worked those men into the ground. The entire crew except for the Supervisor, who offered me a job (LOL) and told me he would never know by looking at me that I had that type of strength, stamina and endurance.
Exception; guys are stronger most of the time, blame evolution. I still wouldn't want to be in a combat patrol with someone who couldn't carry me out rapidly under fire if I were injured. I wouldn't give a "" what gender they were. The reality TV program I mentioned showed the only factor that the women were poorer at was upper body strength, and even then a woman won.
2. In the animal world, it is usually the female who is in charge of killing the prey and bringing it home while the male just nuts off and goes to spray his goop around town, marking his "territory." So who says women can't be vicious?
What do you mean, in? We're part of it. You seem to be overstating the case based on an image of Lions, and an inaccurate image of Lions. Male Lions hunt just fine when there are no females around. In other species, the male hunts, in others, it is shared. In humans, the fact guys have better ability to target and throw (i.e. manipulate objects in 3D), better upper body strength, higher bone density and specific muscle strength, a different pelvic girdle, etc., indicate at an improtant point in human evolution guys were the hunters. Women have better memories, higher social skills, more acute senses of smell and taste. Hunter-gatherers we were and still are. Viciousness is nothing to do with it. My cat can be so vicious it's driven vistors out of the house. I could kill it in three seconds or less. My girlfriend is my equal in everyway and far scarier when angry, but I'm physically stronger than her and could subdue her in seconds, less if I wasn't being careful about hurting her.
3. In ANY fight or flight situation, the adrenaline factor kicks in and imparts superhuman strength to man and woman. Many times the news has reported situations where a woman accomplished a superhuman feat; i.e., lifting a car off of her husband when the jack failed and he was being crushed. This is just one example.
mmmm, and that means a guy wuill be proportionately stonger to, and a woman would still be weaker.
4. As for getting your period? Give me a break. First of all, elite women athletes rarely, if ever, get their period because of the suppression of estrogen in their system. I'm quite sure [8>] that before a crew went into battle the logistics could be worked out. Perhaps a shot of testosterone or Depo-Provera. How ridiculous!
I agree that's pathetic. Menstural blood is sterile people. The only reason many American and European women are so phobic about it is that the old unclean religious taboos have transmuted into marketing campaigns for the sanipro industry. Hell, I got my red wings years ago, I've never died... I think hardened combat troops would be capable of having blood trickle down their leg and fill their boot, whether it's from a leg wound or a heavy menstural bleed.
5. I can guarantee you that in countries where women are treated like third class citizens (not the US, mind you, where we are treated like second class citizens) they need a taste of this medicine. They need to get their nutz shot off by a blonde, brunette or whatever.
2nd class citizens in the US? And what percentage of Representatives and Senator are female?
6. The Armed Forces has spent BILLIONS making technology the great equalizer. We don't want to have to have our troops endangered needlessly, period, be they man or woman. It doesn't take much strength to map coordinates on a GPS system and push "Arm."
Yeah, but 'front line combat troops' to me means running round with an M16, and having to be able to gut someone with a knife whilst avoiding them doing the same, and being capable of pulling your mate out if they get hit. I'm not talking about other roles.
Technology or not, there's going to be some house-to-house fighting in this war. The gun and the knife are what it boils down to sometimes. This is the only area I have worries about most woman being at a disadvantage. And even then, if they pass the SAME tests, then fine... but the the men working with them would need training to avoid being stupidly chivalrous, maybe seperate units, I don't know. Historically there have been cultures where some women fought, no reason to change that now.
Give me a *ucking break. Lop sided conversations like this one are just one of the reasons I left the board. Let women decide if they want the risk. Period. We don't need nor do we want to be 'babied,' thank you very much.
Yeah, provided someone doesn't want to do something out of their depth that will endanger others. They can decide their risk, but others risks? But women in the millitary is great, just as gays in the millitary is great...
... any one who really wants to join can, as far as I am concerned. For a start, everything is in dull, dull colours, and I'm sure that could be improved on, and those marches and uniforms, so drab and boring....
(Abaddon of the I hope people realise the last paragraph is farsical class)
-
Realist
a) for most jobs in the military you don'T have to be strong. its enough if you can run and hit the trigger.
b) since woman are at least as tough as man and claim to be less pain sensitive they should of course have the right to serve in the army.
however, to begin with nobody should fall for nationalistic nonsense and enlist in the military be it man or woman!
-
LDH
Hey Abaddon, how are you dude?
and a woman would still be weaker.
True this may be. What is the defining point? A "weaker" woman could still carry a man off the battle field. I'd like to see quite a few of the milque-toasts on this board pick a fight with Marian Green, the track star. LOL. Or try mouthing off to Serena Williams. And get your head shoved up your arse.
I'm physically stronger than her and could subdue her in seconds, less if I wasn't being careful about hurting her.
LOL. Smith and Wesson. The Great Equalizer. "nuff said. Subdue THIS! [;)]
As far as "sitting in your own menstrual blood-" side point, I saw an interview with Scott Grady taken POW in Desert Storm I believe. He mentioned sitting in his own excrement for DAYS on end. Give me my period, anyday.
Yeah, but 'front line combat troops' to me means running round with an M16, and having to be able to gut someone with a knife whilst avoiding them doing the same, and being capable of pulling your mate out if they get hit.
I wish I had saved the Parade article a couple of months ago about "Soldiers of the Future" that talked about how our government is investing millions into medications which will allow soldiers to be immune from fear, operate for up to 48 hours without sleep (and have no negative side effects) and so on.
EVERY human has limitations. Why should women be judged on limitations based on MEN's standards? Shit, not every MAN passes the physical conditioning tests in the Armed Forces.
Lisa
-
LyinEyes
I just watched the movie G.I. Jane, with Demi Moore, and darn that girl was in shape. I think most women could not pass the Navy Seals test, but I would think there would be some, as some men have not passed it either. But our physical makeup gives us so many disadvantages, so I don't think there are a great number of women who could make the grade, on the physical part nearly as the majoritiy of the men do. But like I said there are probably some exceptions to that, there are probably some women who can do as well.
In the movie , G. I. Jane asked for the same exact standards that the rest of the men had,,,,,,, I think it should be that way, if she wants to be treated as an equal. In the frontlines, there would be no allowances for her being a woman, so she should train just like the men. At least if I was doing it, I wouldnt want special treatment, I would want to be as good as the men.
I find the movie is really hard to believe and I want to do some research to see if or how many women have gone thru Navy Seals training. I for one could not do it, even at my strongest and healthiest for me, I have had physicall problems that I could never have done it.Does anyone know of actuall cases of women going the distance in military training? I would like to think there have been, but still hard to believe there is a good number who have.
-
Azalo
if they want to, sure
-
Abaddon
LDH: I don't think we are communicating clearly. No matter how many examples you can quote, average women are still weaker than average men, and the strongest women are still weaker than the strongest men. It's a fact, whether you like it or not.
In a three week recreation of SAS (the elite millitary unit in the UK) selection in the Borneo jungle, the women did better than the men (they dropped out less quickly), and one women of 110lb was in the final six. Despite the fact she was obviously far weaker than the other remaining men and women she was indominatable and would keep going until her body stopped responding. A woman won.
But in the tests, all the women, even the winner, even the super athletic, were confounded by basic biology. They weren't as strong. Carrying heavy loads, especially loads that had to be carried in the arms, was far harder for them. Everything else effort and determination could equalise, but if something's too damn heavy, it's too damn heavy.
It's not sexism to say this, it's fact, and if you don't like it blame evolution. It goes without saying lots of guys are not strong enough for front line combat units. It's nothing personal against the women who aren't that strong.
I'm not saying women shouldn't be in front line combat units. I am saying that if they are working with men, just as a man will be expected of carrying any member of the team he is in, so should the woman. Now if that means women have to pass the same tests, and only the very very fittest get through because of the strength requirement, then so be it. If it means women are put in teams with women or guys they can carry, fine. It's an obvious requirement of a front line combat soldier to be able to carry wounded comrades... oh, and the weapons.
Combat drugs might change this, but do you want to test that $hit? The government has not got a great track record of responsible use of GI's as lab rats!!!
-
ApagaLaLuz
I had to deal with this when I had wanted to be a firefighter.
I didnt go into that line of work obviously, but here's how I feel:
If I'm in a burning and a little 5'3" 108 girl comes to rescue me I'm gonna be worried. But if that little girl can get my big ol' amazon butt to safety the same as a 6'3' 225 lb guy than so be it. The standards should be the same, and either you can hang or you cant.
-
pr_capone
Yeh, I have to agree with you Chevy and Azalo. If they can and want to, why not?
PFC District Overbeer