Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 5/3/2001 11:13:39 AM EDT
how do you feel about females in combat? any females here that would fight? and i don't mean answer the phones and be secretaries, i mean fight and die with everyone else.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:19:45 AM EDT
I believe in equal opportunity all the way to a woman being in combat, if she wishes. What bothers me is that a woman if captured by the enemy, is going to be subject to tortures and atrocities that are not normally inflicted upon male captives. She most assuredly will be raped repeatedly among other things. She could possibly wind up pregnant or infected with HIV as a result. Most men feel very protective of women and the thought of the aforementioned bothers us. Don't misunderstand me. If a woman wants to go into combat and realizes these things are possibilities, and accepts this risk, then I am all for her doing as she wishes. I just don't like the thought of some of the possible outcomes.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:21:11 AM EDT
bad idea. I think they should stay with the rear echelon. I'm not sexist, but I just don't think they can hack it. I've heard of all-female fire departments, another bad idea. If I'm in a burning building and unconscious, I'm going to have to be carried out, and I want someone there who can do that. Similarly, if I'm injured and incapacitated, I'm going to have to be carried out, and I don't think females could do it as well. It's a fact, they're just not as strong. You could go off on that and give other examples of why they shouldn't be there, but I'll just leave it at that.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:23:46 AM EDT
Females in combat??? I had hoped that women had more good sense than to WANT to die in a war. I guess I can identify with the patriotic aspect of wanting to fight for your country. Some of the most patriotic people I know are women. Namely my mom. From a pragmatic standpoint, however, I don't think I would want to have to depend on a female to drag my shot up butt off a battlefield. You see, I'm 6'4" and 255 lbs. I don't know many women that could lift me, or drag me to safety. And I would like to think my fellow soldier would be able to do such a thing. AS I would be able to do for my fellow soldier. Lastly, women have certain "biological necessities" that are unsuited to combat. I don't think I should elaborate further than that. On the whole, NO.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:23:59 AM EDT
Didn't the NVA have women sappers?
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:25:26 AM EDT
ok a qualifier. they must meet the same minimum standards as men. then is it ok? i agree that if you can't handle the hose you ain't gonna put out the fire.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:25:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:27:43 AM EDT
My experience (6 years in the Marines) showed me that most women do not join the military to fight. Aside from a few notable exceptions, they were there to find a husband or get a good job with good benefits they almost [b]could not[/b] be fired from. I had a female corporal bitching to me about having to patrol in the rain, and she wore gloves the whole time (in a hot Okinawa summer) to protect the nail job she had just had done. On one occasion, a young female told me flat out she enlisted to get a husband, and would take the out the Marine Corps gives to females when they get pregnant. I saw female service members run [b]from[/b] a fight, rather than toward it, when members of their unit were dusting it up. If they can't hack a fistfight, what are they going to do when men in their fire team start losing limbs and heads to enemy fire? When females can consistently meet the same physical standards that the men are held to, I'll reconsider, but until then: No F'ing Way. The battlefield is not gender-normed. Semper Fidelis Jarhead out. -------------- "The truth is that any good modern rifle is good enough. The determining factor is the man behind the gun." --President Theodore Roosevelt
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:28:05 AM EDT
Female fighters go way back in History. Israel and Vietnam (during the Vietnam war) are good examples.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:28:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By satcong: Didn't the NVA have women sappers?
View Quote
don't know but i do know that russian female tank commanders knocked out alot of german tanks and russian female pilots were aces and they were flying against germans. and what in the hell are biological necessities?
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:32:37 AM EDT
Did the Germans have females fighting in WW2?
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:34:09 AM EDT
I really don't have a problem with it as long as they truely understand what can and probably will happen to them if they are captured. The only problem I see is that it's hard enough for a man stay somewhat clean in the field. I think a female would have a very difficult time with hygiene in the field for any extended amount of time.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:34:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By steyrgirl: ok a qualifier. they must meet the same minimum standards as men. then is it ok?
View Quote
If the min standard is lifting / dragging a 6'4" 255 lb. man to safety, then OK. [:D] Actually, still NO. Women are biologically unsuited to the rigors of war. Skeletal design, menstruation, mood swings (only SLIGHTLY worse than some men I've met) susceptibility to horrendous forms of torture, ability to handle pain, and the related ability to deny giving the enemy sensitive information ALL IMO disqualify women for combat. Granted, I'm using some broad generalities in my thinking, but I don't think we NEED to do it, so WHY put women into combat?? The cost of screening a female and testing her to the point where her fellow soldiers are SURE she can handle combat in a way that DOES NOT PUT THEM IN GREATER DANGER OR REQUIRE THEM TO HELP CARRY HER PART OF THE LOAD is not worth it. IMO. Good question tho, and no offense intended. Btw, steyrgirl, I'm more than happy to have you here. Even tho this place gets to seem like combat from time to time [:D]
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:36:06 AM EDT
no it's not o.k. and minimum standards don't work. women have 20-30% less in both size and muscle mass (but boobies) and are designed to be walking incubators. you want the strongest and best in war, not 20% deficiencies. there's lots of other good "female" jobs like KP, cleaning toilets with your toothbrush, just to name a few [:D]
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:37:19 AM EDT
By biological neccessities, I think he means that once a month period when women cry and then turn into mans' worst nightmare. Once a month they aught to send women out in war, because they could kill anything during that period. [}:D] No offense Steyrgirl Ice
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:38:39 AM EDT
Another problem not addressed here is that US military forces, aside from the very high-speed, low-drag fellas, spend the lion's share of their time in garrison. This is where the problems with female service members show themselves, just like with homosexuals. The US military is here to defend our Nation and Constitution, not to act as a medium for self-expression or social experimentation. Semper Fidelis Jarhead out.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:53:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 11:57:13 AM EDT by gardenWeasel]
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: When females can consistently meet the same physical standards that the men are held to, I'll reconsider, but until then: No F'ing Way.
View Quote
And I'm [i]sure[/i] that the govt. would NEVER try to accomodate women by lowering those physical standards. Our govt. never lowers standards or forces any entity to lower its own standards to accomodate anyone.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:03:10 PM EDT
yeah but some of you guys are f*cked in the head every day of the month.[O:)] let me put it to you this way. in a red dawn scenario where they are coming down the street you will need to move your big asses over to make some room for me, my weapon and ammo, because i am going to lay down a base of fire. screw you if you don't want my help, i will be defending my home and family too and won't have time for the what if you get knocked up crap. so by extention, doesn't that sense of duty apply to my country in a legitimate overseas war?
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:05:06 PM EDT
and chaingun, if we ever met you would be cleaning my toilet trust me.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:11:52 PM EDT
Oh boy! I bet all of this here animosity could be fixed by some good ol' fashioned mandatory sensitivity training. You know, the kind funded by cutting the combat training budget.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:17:37 PM EDT
Women in combat? No way. I remember an outtake from CNN's Gulf War coverage, when a camera team was interviewing some of the soldiers at a rear base, they asked a female soldier what her duty was - her reply: 'I'm the Camp whore' grinning like the Cheshire Cat. The scene was cut so as not to give discomfort to those wives and girlfriends back stateside. I have also heard, but never confirmed, that the two female soldiers captured by the Iraqis in the Gulf War, were both gangraped by their captors. I saw on several occasions during the Gulf War, a shot of two soldiers walking together, the man carrying his combat pack on his back and helping the woman carry hers between them. If and when they get to their objective, the man will be needlessly tired from the extra load, and his fighting ability lessened. And for what? For the sake of the Barbara Boxers of this World. For terminal political correctness! As far as Israel is concerned, let me quote:
A widespread misconception exists regarding the role of women soldiers in the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces]. Contrary to popular belief, females never engage in combat.
View Quote
from [u]Israeli Defense Forces Since 1973[/u] by Samuel M. Katz (c.1986) In the October War of 1973, I believe that there were 3 Sabra women killed in an artillery barrage on the Sinai front. They were driving supply trucks to a rear echelon supply depot. The country almost ground to a complete halt over the grief caused by these women's deaths. The presence of women on the battlefield will only serve to cloud the military issues that should be clearly defined. 'Sir, we can't send in Company C to try and hold that position! It's composed mostly of females and they could be overrun any minute!' Even the possibility of such a result should keep this from ever, ever occurring in the real World. Eric The Hun
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:19:31 PM EDT
A feisty heavily armed woman, are you sure you are engaged? [}:D] No offense, and no one is doubting your patriotism or willingness to fight but the decks are stacked against you because of our social views and mother nature's views. My coworker reminded me that woman get beat up for walking in the middle east with out a guardian or husband. When you pack 95lbs of gear around in the desert or jungle your back aches, but I don't think women could do that as much, they weren't designed for it. Nothing would be better than having women fight next to us, but it isn't feasible. Take care and reload. Ice
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:21:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 12:22:50 PM EDT by Imbroglio]
I would not object to women in combat as long as they would be segregated into all female units. If they were mixed in with males they would be too much of a distraction and bring down overall combat effectiveness. SHTF conditions are compeletly different. Most people would be too pre-occupied with trying to survive and would not turn down another able body shooter regardless of gender.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:25:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 12:27:37 PM EDT by steyrgirl]
ok, most of that is fair. but i've met alot of military guys who were current that i was stronger than. so what is the deal? now, no illusions. i laughed my butt off when i saw gi jane. i know a couple guys that tried for seals and failed, and they were bad ass. i'm not saying i would be some green beret or anything special, but i have met some pretty pathetic gulf war participants whose college fund program was interupted and got mad when they ended up in the desert. i could seriously take these guys. i'm probably stronger, smarter and shoot better. so why would you rather have them keeping you company? oh yeah, whoever mentioned boxer, i definitely think she should be in combat, front line with the most advanced slingshot made by man. isn't there still a war in bosnia where she could personally promote the women in combat thing.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:27:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 12:28:47 PM EDT by sigman]
If I rember right Delta Force tried using women operators.Needless to say it failed horribly.Also that GI Jane stuff is crap,I saw a report once, by a ex-navy SEAL officer that said that they allowed women to try the BUD/S training to see if the could pass,no female passed.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:31:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By steyrgirl: let me put it to you this way. in a red dawn scenario where they are coming down the street you will need to move your big asses over to make some room for me, my weapon and ammo, because i am going to lay down a base of fire. screw you if you don't want my help, i will be defending my home and family too and won't have time for the what if you get knocked up crap. so by extention, doesn't that sense of duty apply to my country in a legitimate overseas war?
View Quote
First of all, the "Red Dawn" scenario is ENTIRELY different than the conscious decision to include women in, and train them for, combat situations. Were we in a REd Dawn scenario and you came charging up behind wanting to lay down a base of fire, I'd say "What took you so long to get here," and probably wouldn't even notice your female assets, so to speak. But NO, my willingness to welcome your participation in defending a postion we were holding in a SHTF scenario has NO PRACTICAL APPLICATION to" (your)sense of duty ...to my country in a legitimate overseas war?" An analogy if I may - Here soldier, you can choose either of these weapons - this one is full auto, and has never jammed. This other one is a bolt action, and often misfires, and has a cracked wooden stock. Which one do you want, should you ever find yourself in a combat situation?? The simple fact is 95% of men will do a better job on the battle field that ANY woman, for the reasons I listed above. And when I get the chance to CHOOSE (i.e. NOT a SHTF scenario) I want the BEST. Now, PLEASE.... I like you, I welcome you here to the AR board, I'd be thrilled to see you on the firing line of a high power match right next to me... ...but PLEASE don't keep PUSHING this issue to where its gonna get REAL nasty. You ASKED for opinions, you got them. Let's do our best to remain friends. Otay???
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:32:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbrog|io: I would not object to women in combat as long as they would be segregated into all female units. If they were mixed in with males they would be too much of a distraction and bring down overall combat effectiveness. SHTF conditions are compeletly different. Most people would be too pre-occupied with trying to survive and would not turn down another able body shooter regardless of gender.
View Quote
so it's my fault you cannot control your penis. is this not the same argument they use for gun control? gang members can't control their urges so no guns for anyone.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:39:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By steyrgirl: let me put it to you this way. in a red dawn scenario where they are coming down the street you will need to move your big asses over to make some room for me, my weapon and ammo, because i am going to lay down a base of fire. screw you if you don't want my help, i will be defending my home and family too and won't have time for the what if you get knocked up crap. so by extention, doesn't that sense of duty apply to my country in a legitimate overseas war?
View Quote
First of all, the "Red Dawn" scenario is ENTIRELY different than the conscious decision to include women in, and train them for, combat situations. Were we in a REd Dawn scenario and you came charging up behind wanting to lay down a base of fire, I'd say "What took you so long to get here," and probably wouldn't even notice your female assets, so to speak. But NO, my willingness to welcome your participation in defending a postion we were holding in a SHTF scenario has NO PRACTICAL APPLICATION to" (your)sense of duty ...to my country in a legitimate overseas war?" An analogy if I may - Here soldier, you can choose either of these weapons - this one is full auto, and has never jammed. This other one is a bolt action, and often misfires, and has a cracked wooden stock. Which one do you want, should you ever find yourself in a combat situation?? The simple fact is 95% of men will do a better job on the battle field that ANY woman, for the reasons I listed above. And when I get the chance to CHOOSE (i.e. NOT a SHTF scenario) I want the BEST. Now, PLEASE.... I like you, I welcome you here to the AR board, I'd be thrilled to see you on the firing line of a high power match right next to me... ...but PLEASE don't keep PUSHING this issue to where its gonna get REAL nasty. You ASKED for opinions, you got them. Let's do our best to remain friends. Otay???
View Quote
i'm not pushing the issue. i'm finding out people opinions. no one has been nasty and i don't think they will. i actually understand and respect the concept that others do not think exactly like me. so far no one's response has bothered me until yours now. the part that bothers me is that i should not ask. and aren't you the guy who doesn't believe in dinosaurs?
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:41:36 PM EDT
From steyrgirl - So why would you rather have them keeping you company?
View Quote
Wouldn't necessarily, but if they were captured and taken behind enemy lines, I doubt they'd get raped. Well, maybe the pretty ones.[:D] But, look at it this way - if YOU were captured, don't you think that SteyrAug might go and do something stupid to try and rescue you, and wind up getting the both of you killed. If you were back at base, he'd have kept his head and not made a reckless move. Hell, I'd want to 'entertain' the enemy's female troops![}:D] Eric The Hun
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:43:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
From steyrgirl - So why would you rather have them keeping you company?
View Quote
Wouldn't necessarily, but if they were captured and taken behind enemy lines, I doubt they'd get raped. Well, maybe the pretty ones.[:D] But, look at it this way - if YOU were captured, don't you think that SteyrAug might go and do something stupid to try and rescue you, and wind up getting the both of you killed. If you were back at base, he'd have kept his head and not made a reckless move. Hell, I'd want to 'entertain' the enemy's female troops![}:D] Eric The Hun
View Quote
but eric, doesn't that work both ways? if i were in command, would i not go after him? i'd die to save him too.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:49:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 12:49:20 PM EDT by steyrgirl]
hey guys you don't have to be a pow to be raped. it happens all the time here. there are worse things. dead is worse than raped. if your alive there is always the chance you might get the opportunity to kill the sob later. rape, like death and torture are a reality of war. one should not expect otherwise. it is not even something i would actually want. i'm not military and never have been. i was just thinking about if i would be willing to do it. i decided if the cause was just, i would. then i decided to find out why some, if any of you, would object. your not hurting my feelings, i'm just trying to understand.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:52:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By steyrgirl: i'm not pushing the issue. i'm finding out people opinions. no one has been nasty and i don't think they will. i actually understand and respect the concept that others do not think exactly like me. so far no one's response has bothered me until yours now. the part that bothers me is that i should not ask. and aren't you the guy who doesn't believe in dinosaurs?
View Quote
yes, that's me. I especially don't belive in that old dinosaur that says that men and women are equal. I said earlier that its fine if you want to ask. In fact, i said it was a good question. perhaps i worded my earlier post poorly. Maybe I should have asked "What do you hope to gain by defining the scenario NARROWLY enuf that we might just be able to craft a situation that maybe, just maybe, a woman would be suited to combat?" I would go to fight so that you don't have to. why can't you accept that gift???
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:53:06 PM EDT
Chaingun dont worry I wont let anyone make you clean latrines. I dont care how pretty and what kind of rifle their tottin`.[;)] Steyrgirl- Is the question of females in the US military? Or would I fight next to one? Far be it from me to refuse help from anyone if we have similar agenda`s. So goes Partisian work. Our military should not allow females in combat MOS`. My reasoning is simple. I and many other men would be more protective of a female than a male in combat. I might do something that is not in the best interest of my orders or my health. Also there is the issue of nudity and plumbing needs. I know it should not matter but the vast amount of Americans view the naked form as a sin or moraly wrong in public. Many other country`s dont have this problem. Nudity is no big deal. I`ve been to enough continents to see that it is a topic only Americans consider verbotten. There are some women that are meaner and stronger than me but they are the exception not the rule. If a female looked like Lyle Alzado or Ernest Borgnine that might not be a problem.[:)]
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:53:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By steyrgirl: so it's my fault you cannot control your penis. is this not the same argument they use for gun control? gang members can't control their urges so no guns for anyone.
View Quote
It is basic animal behavior for the male to try to protect the female. It has nothing to do with being able to or not control a penis. Gang members engage in CRIMINAL activities and has nothing to do with an group of people that are supposed to act as a single efficient cohesive unit. You are trying to compare apples to oranges.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:53:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By steyrgirl: i'm not pushing the issue. i'm finding out people opinions. no one has been nasty and i don't think they will. i actually understand and respect the concept that others do not think exactly like me. so far no one's response has bothered me until yours now. the part that bothers me is that i should not ask. and aren't you the guy who doesn't believe in dinosaurs?
View Quote
yes, that's me. I especially don't belive in that old dinosaur that says that men and women are equal. I said earlier that its fine if you want to ask. In fact, i said it was a good question. perhaps i worded my earlier post poorly. Maybe I should have asked "What do you hope to gain by defining the scenario NARROWLY enuf that we might just be able to craft a situation that maybe, just maybe, a woman would be suited to combat?" I would go to fight so that you don't have to. why can't you accept that gift???
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:56:04 PM EDT
Another issue NOT yet addressed - If we put women on teh battle field, where will teh "Rosie the Riveters" come from?? Women played a KEY role of the homefront, manufacturing and providing the supplies to keep the war effort advancing. With women on the battlefield, where would the homefront effort come from???
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 12:57:39 PM EDT
Ok, probably a bad example. How about this - you know that in every war, the psychological aspects sometimes overwhelm the tactical factors. The enemy would know that Americans would never allow an American female soldier to be raped upon capture and that the Americans males would act in a rash manner to rescue the female. That would be the bait for an ambush. Even if the enemy didn't actually rape the female, their taunts across the battlefield would leave the Americans with little choice but to assume the worse and try for an impossible rescue. You don't think that the two American females that were captured in the Gulf War wouldn't have been used in such a manner. We held our collective breaths when we were shown tapes of the captured Allied airMEN in Iraqi hands during the war. How about a few scenes of captured American female soldiers, with cut lips, bruises on their faces, clothes in disarray, just the hint of ravishment about them....America and its military would have come to a grinding halt!!! Eric The Hun
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:02:04 PM EDT
In defense of our country, our wives, our children, and our liberty, we are prepared to play the reaper and do dark deeds. I agree with Imbroglio, it is the male instinct. Ice
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:04:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rich314: Chaingun dont worry I wont let anyone make you clean latrines. I dont care how pretty and what kind of rifle their tottin`.[;)] Steyrgirl- Is the question of females in the US military? Or would I fight next to one? Far be it from me to refuse help from anyone if we have similar agenda`s. So goes Partisian work. Our military should not allow females in combat MOS`. My reasoning is simple. I and many other men would be more protective of a female than a male in combat. I might do something that is not in the best interest of my orders or my health. Also there is the issue of nudity and plumbing needs. I know it should not matter but the vast amount of Americans view the naked form as a sin or moraly wrong in public. Many other country`s dont have this problem. Nudity is no big deal. I`ve been to enough continents to see that it is a topic only Americans consider verbotten. There are some women that are meaner and stronger than me but they are the exception not the rule. If a female looked like Lyle Alzado or Ernest Borgnine that might not be a problem.[:)]
View Quote
finally one i understand. yes you guys will go too far out on that limb for us. as for the plumbing issue, id' take a piss next to ya, no worries, just don't stare ok.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:07:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By steyrgirl: i'm not pushing the issue. i'm finding out people opinions. no one has been nasty and i don't think they will. i actually understand and respect the concept that others do not think exactly like me. so far no one's response has bothered me until yours now. the part that bothers me is that i should not ask. and aren't you the guy who doesn't believe in dinosaurs?
View Quote
yes, that's me. I especially don't belive in that old dinosaur that says that men and women are equal. I said earlier that its fine if you want to ask. In fact, i said it was a good question. perhaps i worded my earlier post poorly. Maybe I should have asked "What do you hope to gain by defining the scenario NARROWLY enuf that we might just be able to craft a situation that maybe, just maybe, a woman would be suited to combat?" I would go to fight so that you don't have to. why can't you accept that gift???
View Quote
i didn't ask for your gift. when did i say we were equal? i just suggested some of us were qualified. we are not equal, i'm better than some men. your world seems kinda narrow too.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:10:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ice: In defense of our country, our wives, our children, and our liberty, we are prepared to play the reaper and do dark deeds. I agree with Imbroglio, it is the male instinct. Ice
View Quote
to quote the big guy "it is a hard heart that kills." therefore i'm qualified. think of your ex's for a second. how would you like to subject the enemy to that?
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:10:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 1:22:04 PM EDT by MindHunter]
Short answer is yes I feel women should be allowed in combat. And I would not have any problems fighting in a coed situation. Most of the reasons I have seen posted don't hold water since I have served in the armed forces and have seen men that could not hold their mud. Edited to add: Posturing, Fighting, or Fleeing are HUMAN characteristics not male ones alone. I can see the benefits of not having egos running around the battlefield but instead goal oriented warriors regardless of sex. Hunter out...
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:11:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:14:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: Another issue NOT yet addressed - If we put women on teh battle field, where will teh "Rosie the Riveters" come from?? Women played a KEY role of the homefront, manufacturing and providing the supplies to keep the war effort advancing. With women on the battlefield, where would the homefront effort come from???
View Quote
how about we let some old fossils knock out some factory work? i just don't remember women leaving their kitchens to run factories during viet nam. i think you've got "other" issue.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:14:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By steyrgirl: your world seems kinda narrow too.
View Quote
Oh, it definitely is. And i make no apologies for that. [:D] But not so narrow as to not want women in the shooting sports. You indicated that you never said you thought men and women were equal. Well said. That right there is THE reason to not have women on the battlefield. Without intending offense, women, on the whole, are less effective at getting the job of combat done. Why put a less effective person on teh battle field??? And I do NOT believe its the Army's job to go searching for the exception to the above rule re: effectiveness. its that simple.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:20:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By steyrgirl: your world seems kinda narrow too.
View Quote
Oh, it definitely is. And i make no apologies for that. [:D] But not so narrow as to not want women in the shooting sports. You indicated that you never said you thought men and women were equal. Well said. That right there is THE reason to not have women on the battlefield. Without intending offense, women, on the whole, are less effective at getting the job of combat done. Why put a less effective person on teh battle field??? And I do NOT believe its the Army's job to go searching for the exception to the above rule re: effectiveness. its that simple.
View Quote
if you are going to quote me don't do it like a damn democrat. my entire quote was: when did i say we were equal? i just suggested some of us were qualified. we are not equal, i'm better than some men. i have a feeling you and i would disagree on a great many things. that is if i was allowed by you to be in disagreement.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:22:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 1:25:43 PM EDT by Faramir66103]
I'm new around here, but this is something I've thought about for a while now, so here's my own opinion, for what it's worth. In a perfect world each and every individual would be judged equally and by their own merits. Therefore, in a military application, all of the objections raised so far wouldn't matter. There would be no sociatal hang ups about males irrationally over protecting females, nudity or other body hang ups. If you could do the job, you'd be an accepted, equal and valuable member of the team. The reality of the situation is that we don't live in that world, for better or worse. I've worked with some amazing women in mountian search and rescue operations, and been VERY happy to have them along. I also have to admit though that I am more protective of the women in my life than the men. That's not a reflection of my friends and family, but me. I believe in courteous behavior. I open the door for my wife (she also opens it for me) I walk my women friends and co-workers to their cars at night etc. Call me old fashioned, pessimestic or whatever, it's just who I am. FWIW, Adam Jacob adamjacob@mac.com ICQ 47024895 "SoundGoat" Oh, I forgot to add, that I'm rather pleased at how most folks have participated in this thread. It's quite a testiment to the quality of the message board that disagreements like this can occur without breaking down into flame wars, name calling and other grade school behavior.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:23:27 PM EDT
everything must be said twice when dealing with women. This post is a perfect example.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:27:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 1:27:23 PM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By steyrgirl:
Originally Posted By garandman: You indicated that you never said you thought men and women were equal. Well said.
View Quote
if you are going to quote me don't do it like a damn democrat. my entire quote was: when did i say we were equal? i just suggested some of us were qualified. WE ARE NOT EQUAL, i'm better than some men.
View Quote
CAPS were added by garandman Me thinks thou doest protest too loudly. You DID INDEED say "we are not equal" (see bold above) as I said you did. this is further proof of WHY women should not be allowed in combat. You (and I will concede you are a tough mother chucker) can't even adequately handle an internet argument, never mind a rifle in combat. Send for reinforcments, steyrgirl. [}:D]
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:31:35 PM EDT
I used to think, no way. In my old age though I say that if they can meet the same physical demands as men, have at it.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:38:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By steyrgirl:
Originally Posted By garandman: You indicated that you never said you thought men and women were equal. Well said.
View Quote
if you are going to quote me don't do it like a damn democrat. my entire quote was: when did i say we were equal? i just suggested some of us were qualified. WE ARE NOT EQUAL, i'm better than some men.
View Quote
CAPS were added by garandman Me thinks thou doest protest too loudly. You DID INDEED say "we are not equal" (see bold above) as I said you did. this is further proof of WHY women should not be allowed in combat. You (and I will concede you are a tough mother chucker) can't even adequately handle an internet argument, never mind a rifle in combat. Send for reinforcments, steyrgirl. [}:D]
View Quote
yes i did say that, but resented you for taking it out of context. i never denied the statement. learn to read so i won't have to say it twice. this is further proof that you are not really considering any opinions other than your own. and yes it is difficult to make sense of you as a result. i think i'll hold off on the reinforcements, your just a rainy day, i've been wet before.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top