User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/6/2002 9:58:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Rabble rouser!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2002 10:26:48 PM EDT
[#2]
I will still have to wait on my opinions. The Navy has not taken any hostile fire, and they have not had to fight any ship board fires. Those hose pack are really heavy, can some of those woman lift them? Most of the combat at this moment just involves pushing buttons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 5:25:58 AM EDT
[#3]
What else would you expect the captain to say? The truth? That women have hurt morale, how many turn up pregnant each time the boat goes out, how many women were removed from the lines during Desert Storm due to pregnancy? You'll hear that once he retires, nothing until then.
I especially liked the quote from one of the women: ``I love it ... [b]I don't have nothing to complain about[/b],'' said Bilbrough, who's from Media, Pa. She joined the Navy because her parents could not afford college fees..." Sounds like she should be taking remedial english, much less a college course. Once the "skata hits the fan", having 800 members of the ships crew unable to perform fully will sure have an impact on the interesting times to follow. The services have given way too many people delusions of adequacy in their service career. Just because you can lower standards until everyone can passes doesn't mean they can do the REAL job at hand. [soapbox] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 5:35:59 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Yes I am trolling... [url]http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020106/wl/afghan_women_at_war_1.html[/url] Female sailors have created ``healthy competition'' ...... Ok, have at it... Mostly, a competition as to who was gonna nail 'em first. [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 6:15:47 AM EDT
[#5]
From this board and this very forum I have learned (From ET3Surfwar) of "Sea-Babies."
Sea-Babies are those children conceived at sea. Seems when certain female sailors want to rotate to shore duty they become pregnant. (Apparently we don't yet allow pregnant women to stay at sea. (Prejudicial....)) Women "Have quietly done their jobs very, very well." [smoke] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 6:26:05 AM EDT
[#6]
[:K]
I've refrained comment until now, but - I'm really struck by the similarities between the objections to women in the military and the objections against integration of the military. They'll affect morale. They can't do the job. They won't/can't fight. Makes me think there will be some surprised faces in the near future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 6:29:12 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: Yes I am trolling... [url]http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020106/wl/afghan_women_at_war_1.html[/url] Female sailors have created ``healthy competition'' ...... Ok, have at it... Mostly, a competition as to who was gonna nail 'em first. [rolleyes] LOL! Thats how I got my girlfriend! uuuhhh OOPS, did I say that out loud??? [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 6:41:06 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: [:K] I've refrained comment until now, but - I'm really struck by the similarities between the objections to women in the military and the objections against integration of the military. They'll affect morale. They can't do the job. They won't/can't fight. ("They can get pregnant") Added 5subslr5 Makes me think there will be some surprised faces in the near future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 6:56:01 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: ("They can get pregnant") Added 5subslr5 This is the biggest issue to me. They can fight and they can do the job. They just do not HAVE to do these things if they get pregnant. Personally I think that we need women in the military unless we start up a peacetime draft. -Velveeta |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 7:01:54 AM EDT
[#10]
What the article DOESN'T say is that the CO can face punishment for stating ANY reasons or evidence where women have DEGRADED the combat role/environment of the ship. In the early and mid 90s, officers WERE NOT allowed to use pregnancy or other "female issues" to explain any lack of combat readiness. If your ship was NMC due to problems with females, it was (and still is) ignored and glossed over, and you had to suck it up. Some equality.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 7:02:28 AM EDT
[#11]
KBaker -
I've heard the argument before, but don't think it holds water. Women can get pregnant ....black men can't. Women almost universally have a strength deficiency as compared to men...black me don't. Men tend to shelter women, jeopardizing unit efficiency. Not an issue with black men. In short, the objections to women being in combat are based on documentable reality. The objections to black men being in combat were based on either shortsightedness or racism, and NOT based in reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 7:26:16 AM EDT
[#12]
Anyone that thinks women can preform in a (ground) combat role effectively, has most likely never served in an infantry unit.
THE MILITARY IS FOR KILLING, NOT EQUALITY!!! If you can't hack it, it doesn't matter if you're a man or woman. Women will start getting equal respect when they start making equal physical standards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 7:48:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: THE MILITARY IS FOR KILLING, NOT EQUALITY!!! If you can't hack it, it doesn't matter if you're a man or woman. I concur, it is just an added benefit that we get these social benefits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 7:59:05 AM EDT
[#14]
For what it's worth, I've actually been in a combat unit (Field Artillery) with women assigned. All of our S1 (personnel) officers were females. One after the other, they got pregnant and handed their work off to other (mostly male) officers. At one time, EVERY female in the department was pregnant and NON-DEPLOYABLE. Who does their jobs? If you want to see pathetic, watch an 8 months pregnant woman walking around in the field with "pregnancy: BDUs (no shit, they exist) and her LBE snapped open cuz it wouldn't fit, even if they did make an XXXXXXL belt. Very sad.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 8:01:18 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: For what it's worth, I've actually been in a combat unit (Field Artillery) with women assigned. All of our S1 (personnel) officers were females. One after the other, they got pregnant and handed their work off to other (mostly male) officers. At one time, EVERY female in the department was pregnant and NON-DEPLOYABLE. Who does their jobs? If you want to see pathetic, watch an 8 months pregnant woman walking around in the field with "pregnancy: BDUs (no shit, they exist) and her LBE snapped open cuz it wouldn't fit, even if they did make an XXXXXXL belt. Very sad. SJS - Please do NOT interject REALITY into this discussion. We have an agenda to achieve that doesn't jibe with reality. Signed - The Women in Combat Alliance League [}:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 8:07:21 AM EDT
[#16]
What was I thinking? That kind of talk could end my career!
Oh, yeah. I just got my discharge. [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 8:11:03 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: What was I thinking? That kind of talk could end my career! Oh, yeah. I just got my discharge. [;)] Yeah, I better watch my mouth, because I'll be commissioned next year. Isn't it great your career could be ruined just by expressing opinion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 8:17:04 AM EDT
[#18]
Garandman, some points (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I think that just putting women in without recognizing reality is stupid)
Quoted: KBaker - I've heard the argument before, but don't think it holds water. Women can get pregnant ....black men can't. Women almost universally have a strength deficiency as compared to men...black me don't. Men tend to shelter women, jeopardizing unit efficiency. Not an issue with black men. In short, the objections to women being in combat are based on documentable reality. The objections to black men being in combat were based on either shortsightedness or racism, and NOT based in reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 8:35:34 AM EDT
[#19]
Aren't facts fun!?
What happens when the women get the REMF jobs? Why, the guys who have been at the pointy end of the stick don't get to have one of these soldierettes replace them so they can have a break. The soldierettes don't get the dirty end of the sticks (can't have them complaining to their congresswoman about being "singled out for disgusting jobs" or even worse, failing to do the heavy job...so the guys get the real job. Supporters of soldierettes always bring up pilots and intelligence billets as an example of how good women are in the military....someone in a wheelchair could do the same job---so what. The military is an equal opportunity organization...just because you look at maps doesn't mean you won't be needed to hump ammo, carry wounded, fight nasty insensitive people. "Sorry, it's not in my series" won't cut it when the natives are coming over the mealy bags. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 8:51:54 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: True. They should be required to be on birth control while enlisted. Don't want to be? Don't enlist LOL. I can just see it now... "Golf 6, this is golf 2-1, over." "Golf 6, go..." "Golf 2-1 needs a resupply of ammo, water, and chow. Oh yeah, send some birth control pills and tampons up while youre at it, over..." Women tend to be on the low side of the strength bell curve. Don't change the physical strength requirements to accomodate them. If they pass, great. If they don't, discharge them. Anyone that is determined physically unfit for service should be discharged if they don't make any improvement. No, white soldiers tended to avoid and not defend black soldiers until actual combat occurred. I think that was somehow worse. I don't understand what this has to do with women. Look, I don't think women are particularly suited for infantry or artillery (due to strength), but shipboard? As pilots? The actual number of soldiers on the sharp end is a small fraction of the total number in the military. In order for our all-volunteer military to function, we need women in uniform If some want to be in combat positions and if they can hack it, great. I don't object to women in combat - I object to changing the rules to accomodate them. I've said before that I've seen a lot of good Marines go down because of, we'll just say conflicts, with females. While it makes people feel warm and cozy that everyone is "accepted" on the military, at the same time it causes SERIOUS problems, both in morale and logistics. How many court-martials do you think are going on right now because of run-ins with sexes. How much of our defense budget is being wasted on that? Now that I mention it, how much money is being spent on care for preganant women? Who does their job while they are on maternity leave? I'm not totally against women in the military, but I do think that they should be kept away from men to aviod problems. But that will never happen, because anyone that suggests it, will see a very quick end to their career. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 8:56:49 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Yes I am trolling... [url]http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020106/wl/afghan_women_at_war_1.html[/url] The carrier's commanding officer, Capt. Richard O'Hanlon, a 25-year veteran, admits he was skeptical when women were first assigned to combat ships, but said the effect has been positive and the problems minimal. ``Probably like most people I was afraid of the unknowns,'' he said, but ``the way it turned out it was probably a bunch of artificial barriers that we had all put up in our minds which really in the light of day didn't hold up.'' Female sailors have created ``healthy competition'' and filled a recruitment gap, O'Hanlon said. Cmdr. Diana Cangelosi, who is in charge of the ship's combat direction center, said there have been huge changes in attitude since she joined in 1981. Then, around 30 percent of male sailors supported women being in the Navy; now it's 90 percent, said Cangelosi, the carrier's most senior female officer. ``There are still men who feel women do not belong out here,'' she said. But ``for the most part, the command is totally supportive and people are just outstanding.'' Attitudes have changed because women proved they could do the work and have ``quietly done their jobs very, very well,'' she said. Ok, have at it... ArmdLbrl...you Agent Provacateur! (Good on a Monday to get the blood stirring!) I've said my piece before. That's my story...and I'm stickin' to it. Airdales...maybe. Surface ships...maybe. Land REMFs...maybe. Boots on the ground...NEVER. (Gee...I wish you wouldn't keep calling me a whitemaleracistsexistbigothomophobe!) PS: Anybody who thinks that CO told the reporter the unvarnished TRUTH better line up for the piss test. You've been smoking some powerful whacky weed. That Navy flyer captain hasn't spent 25 years on the Canoe Club Fast Track as a hot runner with stars in his future to throw it all down the toilet by playing like General Patton and uttering even just one un-PC [truthful] statement. NO WAY! He'll be able to live with himself too...because that's just the way it is. (From a 28 yr Navy vet.) [:K] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 9:18:03 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: [:K] I've refrained comment until now, but - I'm really struck by the similarities between the objections to women in the military and the objections against integration of the military. They'll affect morale. They can't do the job. They won't/can't fight. Makes me think there will be some surprised faces in the near future. >>>They'll affect morale.<<< No doubt, I've seen this effect when I was a Marine. "Who do I sleep with next?" >>>They can't do the job.<<< Not if it involves heavy lifting or other physically hard work. Ever watch one of them try to change a 6x6 tire? Pretty funny, IMO. >>>They won't/can't fight<<< I've yet to see the first female who could whip my ass in hand-to-hand. Or find a female who could stick a knife into another female or a man in a fight. >>>Makes me think there will be some surprised faces in the near future<<< Especially the faces on all those dead men who depended on a female in a fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 9:28:17 AM EDT
[#23]
Anyone who equates the statements "Women don't belong in the military" and "Blacks don't belong in the military" should read the following article. It's long, and covers much more than just the point mentioned, but is an excellent view of why women in the military will never work, from a guy who has been there and seen the elephant.
[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2791f85c4d.htm[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 9:42:30 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Anyone that thinks women can preform in a (ground) combat role effectively, has most likely never served in an infantry unit. THE MILITARY IS FOR KILLING, NOT EQUALITY!!! If you can't hack it, it doesn't matter if you're a man or woman. Women will start getting equal respect when they start making equal physical standards. My point is that the military was not making enlistment numbers even WITH women allowed to enlist. You take the women out of the military and what do we do? I think we would have to have a peacetime draft, which I am not against. I was infantry and I agree women are not for combat roles, BUT let us not forget that the Soviets had women combat soldiers and this helped them defeat the Nazi’s so it is POSSIBLE. Do we need them? For combat no, if the job market remains poor, maybe no, but when a kid can make more money outside of the military starting, we will probably need them to fill the ranks. -Velveeta |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 9:50:38 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Anyone that thinks women can preform in a (ground) combat role effectively, has most likely never served in an infantry unit. THE MILITARY IS FOR KILLING, NOT EQUALITY!!! If you can't hack it, it doesn't matter if you're a man or woman. Women will start getting equal respect when they start making equal physical standards. My point is that the military was not making enlistment numbers even WITH women allowed to enlist. You take the women out of the military and what do we do? I think we would have to have a peacetime draft, which I am not against. I was infantry and I agree women are not for combat roles, BUT let us not forget that the Soviets had women combat soldiers and this helped them defeat the Nazi’s so it is POSSIBLE. Do we need them? For combat no, if the job market remains poor, maybe no, but when a kid can make more money outside of the military starting, we will probably need them to fill the ranks. -Velveeta I think you were taking my point a little too far. I didnt say they dont belong AT ALL, just no where near combat and away from the men. I understand that the increasing numbers of women in the military are because of a shortage of men. It even says so in the manual "Fundamentals of Marine Corps Leadership." I have little problem with them filling non-combat roles. Just to clarify... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 9:56:47 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: Anyone that thinks women can preform in a (ground) combat role effectively, has most likely never served in an infantry unit.- Velveeta THE MILITARY IS FOR KILLING, NOT EQUALITY!!! If you can't hack it, it doesn't matter if you're a man or woman. Women will start getting equal respect when they start making equal physical standards. 1. Bring EVERYBODY home from Europe. They're big boys, and can fight their own fights. 2. Bring EVERYBODY home from Korea. The South Korean economy (and military) can hold its own. 3. That's about 150,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Put them where you want. Point: Ridiculous commitments and exercises (particularly those of the Klinton era) need to stop, so we can focus or forces where WE want them, not where the UN wants them. We've got a good, long fight ahead of us, and don't count on the UN pussies to watch our backs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 9:57:59 AM EDT
[#27]
Sorry, Velveeta.
I typed INSIDE the quotes. That last part is my response to Velveeta. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 10:01:27 AM EDT
[#28]
I think we have the same concerns. The Marine Corps has been the truest service to combat ready troops and un-compromised values in my opinion. (I was Army so I am not picking favorites.) I have no problem with all male military schools either. There are public alternatives and the 3 Academies are all coed.
Frankly I think that the US Armed forces are probably in much better shape now then they were before WWI, WWII or Korea, which is not saying much. Charlie Mike, -Velveeta |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 10:27:43 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Anyone who equates the statements "Women don't belong in the military" and "Blacks don't belong in the military" should read the following article. It's long, and covers much more than just the point mentioned, but is an excellent view of why women in the military will never work, from a guy who has been there and seen the elephant. [url]http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2791f85c4d.htm[/url] Very good article. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 12:04:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: don't think women are particularly suited for infantry or artillery (due to strength), but shipboard? As pilots? Yeah, strength isn't needed by many shipboard personnel . . . until something really bad happens. I know someone who received a breifing from an officier from the USS Stark. When the USS Stark got hit, many of the men were "useless" due to lack of strength. It was the "gym rats" who had the strength to get a lot of things done on the burning ship. Sure, when everyone is doing their assigned job and things are going as planned, the women can do the job . . . As pilots? Women pilots need a special set of $600 (that's an old price) diapers for long range flights, to avoid infection. And in general, pilots and especially fighter pilots, need superior spacial reasoning skills. Skills that women are typically not as good at (you could say that women are on the low end of the spatial reasoning bell curve). In WW2, something like 5% of all fighter pilots acheived something like 90% of all kills. Fighter pilots need to be aggressive and have good spatial reasoning skills to be effective (they need to come from the high end of the [i]male[/i] bell curves of aggressiveness and spatial reasoning), culling for good fighter pilots among women appears daunting . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 12:12:38 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: My point is that the military was not making enlistment numbers even WITH women allowed to enlist. You take the women out of the military and what do we do? I think we would have to have a peacetime draft, which I am not against. Only the USMC was making enlistment numbers, and they are the only branch that did not have coed training, and the only branch that managed to maintain something of a warrior attitude. Perhaps the way women are being integrated is [i]hurting[/i] enlistment numbers . . . Quoted: I was infantry and I agree women are not for combat roles, BUT let us not forget that the Soviets had women combat soldiers and this helped them defeat the Nazi’s so it is POSSIBLE. The Soviets mostly used women soldiers for propaganda, and they quickly dropped them after the war. Israel tried women as combat troops, and found out just how useful they were in that role (hint: they don't use them as combat troops anymore). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 12:19:17 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Yeah, strength isn't needed by many shipboard personnel . . . until something really bad happens. I know someone who received a breifing from an officier from the USS Stark. When the USS Stark got hit, many of the men were "useless" due to lack of strength. I had a customer who was on the USS Forrestal when it caught fire during the Vietnam War. He said it was a desperate fight for life and everyone had to work brutal hours doing back-breaking work to save the ship and each other. I love my wife, but I wouldn't want to have to rely on her 5 foot, 3 inch, a-hundred-and-nothin' pound frame to run me up a couple of decks on a ladderwell or yank open a stuck hatch to get to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 12:31:15 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: ...........her 5 foot, 3 inch, a-hundred-and-nothin' pound frame .......... mmmmmmmm, she sounds HOT! [:P] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 12:38:47 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: ...........her 5 foot, 3 inch, a-hundred-and-nothin' pound frame .......... mmmmmmmm, she sounds HOT! [:P] Ask DonR or Arock. She's a sweet lil' thang. [}:D] Someday I'll tell all on how we met . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 1:14:00 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: [:K] I've refrained comment until now, but - I'm really struck by the similarities between the objections to women in the military and the objections against integration of the military. They'll affect morale. They can't do the job. They won't/can't fight. Makes me think there will be some surprised faces in the near future. I do not believe that there were sexual issues to contend with during the integration of the military. I do not believe there were questions about strength and being able to do your job in a physical sense with respect to integration. You will never overcome the urge to copulate in young men when females are around unless you neuter all males upon entry to the Services. I'm sure there are a few whack job out there that would be all for that but I digress... That urge becomes stronger the longer you are deployed. Women are a distraction, I know this from experience. I served onboard a Carrier and we had Detatchments with women come aboard and the atmosphere was decidely different. We spent more time talking about ways to defile these lasses (most of whem were less than comely but out to sea the standards are a bit lower) than we did thinking about the task at hand. They do not belong on Warships and do not belong in combat roles. Anyone who tells you differently is a social engineer who would rather sacrifice the mission and readiness for some misguided ideal that will never be acheived. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 3:55:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: My point is that the military was not making enlistment numbers even WITH women allowed to enlist. You take the women out of the military and what do we do? I think we would have to have a peacetime draft, which I am not against. Only the USMC was making enlistment numbers, and they are the only branch that did not have coed training, and the only branch that managed to maintain something of a warrior attitude. I agree. I think there have been studies that have pointed to the fact that allowing women in the military drives off men who want to feel macho and special. Still I think overall there would be LESS soldiers. Perhaps the way women are being integrated is [i]hurting[/i] enlistment numbers . . . Yes. Quoted: I was infantry and I agree women are not for combat roles, BUT let us not forget that the Soviets had women combat soldiers and this helped them defeat the Nazi’s so it is POSSIBLE. The Soviets mostly used women soldiers for propaganda, and they quickly dropped them after the war. The Soviets used almost a MILLION female soldiers in the war. There were pilots (A lot of night pilots too BTW), Medics, Snipers and Tankers to name some of the roles. They were removed from the service after the war. Israel tried women as combat troops, and found out just how useful they were in that role (hint: they don't use them as combat troops anymore). I believe they still use them in some roles…..There a pretty girl on her way to being a model who got her face blown up recently IIRC. Every man they free up for combat helps. -Velveeta |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2002 9:22:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: The Soviets used almost a MILLION female soldiers in the war. There were pilots (A lot of night pilots too BTW), Medics, Snipers and Tankers to name some of the roles. They were removed from the service after the war. Most had non-combat roles. Many of those who did have combat roles were used for Soviet propaganda. Quoted: I believe they (Israel) still use them in some roles…..There a pretty girl on her way to being a model who got her face blown up recently IIRC. Every man they free up for combat helps. They use them in quite a few non-combat roles. They simply have no choice. But the experiment of using them in combat back in '48 ended real quick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 4:31:53 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Most had non-combat roles. Many of those who did have combat roles were used for Soviet propaganda. They were not strictly for propaganda roles. The Soviets could not have won the war without them. There were approx. 1,000,000 female Russian soldiers and untold numbers of female partisans, and the partisans were not there for propaganda roles. Though many may have been used for “non-combat” roles does not mean that many were not involved in combat. Is a field medic a “non-combat” role? Why do you attempt to minimize their achievement? Do you think Stalin needed almost a million females in service for propaganda? They use them in quite a few non-combat roles. They simply have no choice. But the experiment of using them in combat back in '48 ended real quick. But in Israel where is combat? With suicide attacks happening at any time what is combat? Do you think there is a problem with using them in a non-combat role? -Velveeta |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 4:51:02 AM EDT
[#39]
My thoughts on women in combat roles...
Same physical standards - PERIOD. Topic closed. Can't hack, can't play. I mass 240#, and you may need to be able to pull it out of the line of fire someday... Same thing on a ship - every sailor is a fireman... We are developing birth control that works on an annual dosage - make it work for both men and women, and make it MANDATORY. Exceptions can be allowed, but neds of the service control. If you were supposed to have a wife and kids, you would have been issued them with your duffel and sidearm... You can't get rid of the sex drive, and doing so would be a bad idea anyhow. Besides, someone farily reputable did a study on the relation of testosterone levels according to profession, and infantrymen led by a WIDE margin... Bear in mind that some of the best Combloc snipers are/were women, and for good reason. Women tend to be more patient, easier to train, tend to have solid hand-to-eye coordination, and are able to better seperate reason from emotion (when the capability exists...) Do not make the mistake of assuming that women lack killer instinct, some have it in spades! A brief outline on my wife... 5'2", 150 VERY SOLID # Basic Karate (Santa Clara PD) Excellent marksmanship skills Outstanding physical strength, upper and lower body. She tosses ME around the backyard for practise (I'm 6'3", 240#) Reflexes - faster than most cats Intelligence - untested (est. IQ 150+) Very solid under pressure and duress, and has been tested in hand-to-hand situations. Even with bad knee, a formidable opponent. I have given her what I have been trained from Combative Skills, and finished off with grappling and infighting. The only reason we haven't gone into IED's and IM is because she leaves that to me. Excellent student for E&E, on foot and on road. Excellent off-road driver. I would have gladly accepted her application under my old command, had it been offered and reviewed. Besides, she is also a sound strategist, and we could always have used one of those (we were mostly tacticians, not expecting to live more than the next couple of weeks or so...) FFZ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 4:56:22 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Women tend to be ...better seperate reason from emotion (when the capability exists...) Personally, I have NEVER seen that "capability exist" in a woman. I'd be curious to hear an expalnation of that statement, WITH some documentation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 5:05:31 AM EDT
[#41]
For every good example of a woman who (might) could hack it in the military, I can give three of those who can't, couldn't, won't or wouldn't. The sad fact is that the Pat Schroeder Battalion of the Diesel Bull Dyke Regiment in Congress, along with their limp wristed, simpering, panty wearing, raisin testicled, slap fighting male counterparts will never allow the system to be a level playing field where the winner is determined only by merit and ability. Never.
They will always have to fiddle with it to insert some "affirmative action" into the mix to ensure equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. Aside from all that, men are always going to form emotional bonds with women they're in close contact with, and even when they are not taken to the physical sexual level, that interferes with good order and discipline and gets people killed on the battlefield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 5:07:55 AM EDT
[#42]
I've only really seen it in three women so far, but when the bodily waste hits the rotating air-mover, they go COLD and get things taken care of. I wish I could provide documentation, but it don't exist and the names would likely mean nothing to you...
However, you should also bear in mind that Euro-terrorist groups tend to make VERY effective use of female hitters, and that shows that the capability DOES exist - even if it is rare. Again, please note that it was in fact a parenthetical note, and I really should have called out the relative rarity of the existence of the fact. It is not, however, non-existant - it just seems like it! FFZ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 6:28:39 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: For every good example of a woman who (might) could hack it in the military, I can give three of those who can't, couldn't, won't or wouldn't. You could probably do the same for men though too. Maybe not as many percentage wise, but maybe pretty close. And all of that could be dealt with if you had good and FAIR recruiting standards. I would say more of the problem lies with the System and not with the women. The sad fact is that the Pat Schroeder Battalion of the Diesel Bull Dyke Regiment in Congress, along with their limp wristed, simpering, panty wearing, raisin testicled, slap fighting male counterparts will never allow the system to be a level playing field where the winner is determined only by merit and ability. Never. That is one of my problems as well, and it does not just apply to Women in the military but many other roles as well. Firemen, Policemen, Dock Workers…I could go on. Personally in my fantasy world we would not have, nor would we need women in the military. But we do need them. Can they be as good a Grunt? Maybe extreme individuals, but not many women will be taking an 80 pound ruck into the beach under fire. They will always have to fiddle with it to insert some "affirmative action" into the mix to ensure equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. Again that is a problem with the system, one the Soviets did not have to deal with. Aside from all that, men are always going to form emotional bonds with women they're in close contact with, and even when they are not taken to the physical sexual level, that interferes with good order and discipline and gets people killed on the battlefield. So do relations between men. The REPLDEPL system in WWII was a sham. The old guys wouldn’t even talk to the new guys “because they knew they were going to die soon anyway”. They did not give them tips on survival because they did not want to lose another friend. People die in war. There is a lot of horror and emotion. It just sucks. -Velveeta |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 6:32:04 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: I've only really seen it in three women so far, but when the bodily waste hits the rotating air-mover, they go COLD and get things taken care of. I wish I could provide documentation, but it don't exist and the names would likely mean nothing to you... Names and facts will not mean anything to him. I believe you are referring to the Baader-Meinhoff Gang. And women, like men can kill. However, you should also bear in mind that Euro-terrorist groups tend to make VERY effective use of female hitters, and that shows that the capability DOES exist - even if it is rare. Again, please note that it was in fact a parenthetical note, and I really should have called out the relative rarity of the existence of the fact. It is not, however, non-existant - it just seems like it! FFZ -Velveeta |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 8:48:42 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: They were not strictly for propaganda roles. The Soviets could not have won the war without them. There were approx. 1,000,000 female Russian soldiers and untold numbers of female partisans, and the partisans were not there for propaganda roles. Though many may have been used for “non-combat” roles does not mean that many were not involved in combat. Is a field medic a “non-combat” role? Why do you attempt to minimize their achievement? Do you think Stalin needed almost a million females in service for propaganda? Most of the Soviet women soldiers worked behind the lines, freeing men up for combat. The very few who flew planes, drove tanks and carried sniper rifles were in place for propaganda. Partisans are civilians, and are a different matter from the actual military. Most partisans operated with family members or fellow villagers; the social interactions are different for partisans than for soldiers. If I am a partisan and my female comrade can't carry my wounded body, that's just something I have to accept; it is either her or no one. In the army, I'm going to be part of some unit, and that unit can be all male or all female or some mix. All male is the way to go. Quoted: But in Israel where is combat? With suicide attacks happening at any time what is combat? Do you think there is a problem with using them in a non-combat role? It depends upon the non-combat role. In general, women are fine in non-combat roles. But there are issues. In a ship such as the USS Stark, women can be a big liability. Likewise, women who can't change the tires on a duce and a half by themselves probably shouldn't be driving large trucks. And many women balk at exposing themselves to fire (like those women truck drives down in Panama), and these women shouldn't be in a place where their unwillingness to risk themselves places men at risk. All that said, I'm not opposed to women in support roles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 8:55:07 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: .... And many women balk at exposing themselves..... That's it. No womenz in the military if they refuse to participate in morale-boosting support roles. [smoke] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 8:57:21 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: However, you should also bear in mind that Euro-terrorist groups tend to make VERY effective use of female hitters, and that shows that the capability DOES exist - even if it is rare. I once read a book called [i]Vengence[/i]. It was supposed to be the true story of the Israeli team that exacted revenge for the 1972 Munich massacre. The book was later made into a movie. In the book, it mentioned that female terrorists had never fought to the death, or blown themselves up on purpose, like many male terrorists. They tended to accidently kill themselves, like the woman who "payed too much attention to her martini, and not enough to her hand granade". No doubt, the Euro terrorists enjoyed their female comrads prior to their acts of terrorim, but when the bullets were flying the women were not so useful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 8:59:06 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: .... And many women balk at exposing themselves..... That's it. No womenz in the military if they refuse to participate in morale-boosting support roles. [smoke] Uhh, I didn't write the above quote attriduted to me . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 9:18:25 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Most of the Soviet women soldiers worked behind the lines, freeing men up for combat. The very few who flew planes, drove tanks and carried sniper rifles were in place for propaganda. Most American Soldiers (Men) worked behind the lines in WWII. I guess they sucked in combat too? As to the vague number [blue]“The very few who flew planes”[/Blue] could you give me an oddball number? I can deal with numbers, if I give a number to prove you wrong you can turn that “very few” into a few hundred thousand. I like WWII and have read much on the subject for many years. You are the first person I know who has minimized the role of Soviet Women in WWII to a mere propaganda role. Some kind of reference for this would be nice. Partisans are civilians, and are a different matter from the actual military. Most partisans operated with family members or fellow villagers; the social interactions are different for partisans than for soldiers. If I am a partisan and my female comrade can't carry my wounded body, that's just something I have to accept; it is either her or no one. In the army, I'm going to be part of some unit, and that unit can be all male or all female or some mix. All male is the way to go. Partisans may be civilians but they still filled a valuable combat role in WWII. They were also in the Soviet Army. *snip* And many women balk at exposing themselves to fire (like those women truck drives down in Panama), and these women shouldn't be in a place where their unwillingness to risk themselves places men at risk. As opposed to men who glorify and bravely expose themselves to fire? Are there no men who balk at exposing themselves to combat whatsoever? What was the percentage of soldiers who even aimed their rifles in WWII? Some never even fired their rifles in anger. -Velveeta |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2002 11:40:40 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .... And many women balk at exposing themselves..... That's it. No womenz in the military if they refuse to participate in morale-boosting support roles. [smoke] Uhh, I didn't write the above quote attriduted to me . . . Taken out of context ? Well maybe. But write the words quoted ? You did. [smoke] |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
