Another smart move by Republicans, no women in military

[Cons Himself]

omg you must actually be stupid. hands up here who has actually done any kind of military service - me. anyone else? bliink? oh no i forgot you just close threads all day long. if you have been in a military situation you are in far more of a position to talk about this than some computer geek who would never have the balls to join up anyway - its academic what you think.

"if a female is trained right of course she could take out a trained male soldier in hand to hand combat"

puhhlease stop embarassing yourself. as Razor said hand to hand is a major part of war. what would a female soldier do in that scene in saving private ryan if it was real, which im sure it has been in many conflicts the world over? a 6ft plus Wafen-SS hyper-fit hyper-strong Nazi brandishing a sharpened blade in a battle of pure strength vs a woman?

what? would the woman just use her special moves and 'training' (care to be more specific on the training aspect?) to get out of that situation?

no she would not be as strong and would be killed every single time.

hand to hand combat in war is not like judo - "oh anybody can do judo, you dont have to be strong, even a woman can take out a 250 pound trained soldier if she know ogoshi and how to get an ippon"

hand to hand combat is about pure strength and stamina neither of which women possess on the same level that men do. this is why women arent allowed in front line units, among other reasons. and rightfully so.

and what would happen to a woman if she were captured by a particularly nasty and brutal enemy who doesnt respect any national conventions?

lets take the iraqi army for example. you know what saddam's secret police torture method was for women? aside from raping them half to death of course. his interrogators would stick glass bottles into their vaginas (notice im being graphic so you understand the severity of what you are proposing here), stick them right up there, and then kick the woman in the womb until the bottle smashed.
thats the reality of war as it has always been - killing is not enough, its about suffering and there are people out there who will maximise any PoWs suffering. men are more resistant to this. Andy McNab was held for weeks on end without breaking down.

understand the implications of what you are proposing before spouting off some politically correct bs next time pls.
and the point about the IOs is that if a woman wants to protect her country (which is the main reason people join the army yes? not because they want to flip out like ninjas and kill people? i hope not anyway) she can do so in other more productive ways.

 

[Edcrab]

As I say, sexism is defined as discrimination based purely on gender.

I do not consider denying a man or a woman a position due to their inadequate intellect or physical prowess any kind of sexism.

You're a weed like me? Don't complain that you didn't pass the SAS's selection tests.

You're an idiot? Don't complain that you weren't chosen to represent your country on our next space station.

And don't dare bring your gender/age/race/religion into it.

That's my view on the subject. I'd agree that the issue here is denying positions to personnel by judging them on their gender rather than their capabilities.

It may be a fact of life that women tend to be less physically powerful than their male counterparts but that doesn't mean they'll never meet the necessary criteria to be accepted into the armed services.

 

[kirovman]

omg you must actually be stupid. hands up here who has actually done any kind of military service - me. anyone else? bliink? oh no i forgot you just close threads all day long. if you have been in a military situation you are in far more of a position to talk about this than some computer geek who would never have the balls to join up anyway - its academic what you think.

There, have you satisfied your e-penis now? :upstare:

Oh, while'll were on the subject of satisfying stereotypes, labelling everyone geeks, and woman weak, you happen to fit your own stereotype.
Childish insults about people not having enough balls to join the military just shows how weak your arguement is. I'm willing to bet many members here have seen experienced more dangerous situations than you, while you were on home guard.

Centurion may actually have a military background, or he may just be a nut case - no one really knows

That's my view on the subject. I'd agree that the issue here is denying positions to personnel by judging them on their gender rather than their capabilities.

It may be a fact of life that women tend to be less physically powerful than their male counterparts but that doesn't mean they'll never meet the necessary criteria to be accepted into the armed services.

Yeah, that's what I think too. And if a woman has a chance of being captured and tortured by Iraqis, she's signed up to the same risks as the men.

 

[Cons Himself]

ok lets have a little social background here - im 23 years old have completed 1 years national service and am a university masters graduate.

ive fired rifles and driven in tanks and been stationed within meters of the enemy. its tense but there is a DMZ between us. ive been on long arduous training missions. to sum up i have had but a small taste of what military life is like.

i admit its not my aim to be a professinal combat soldier and i respect the men that do. combat roles are incredibly dangerous.

how about you? from what oh so high vantage point are you speaking? the liberal intelligentsia of south islington? let me guess - youd vote green or liberals correct?

anyway, anyone who comes up with "And if a woman has a chance of being captured and tortured by Iraqis, she's signed up to the same risks as the men." is obviously in cloud cukkoo land. there are many more ways to harm a woman, than there are a man - there is the sexual domination factor which you seemed to have glossed over. rape is a very powerful persuasion tool.

and again i keep stressing the point - women will never be as strong or have the same level of stamina as a man who has gone through the same training. thus, women are inferior soldiers. face it - its never going to happen, theres NO point arguing about it on the half life 2 forums. you liberals may be quite prepared to see women coming home in body bags in large numbers, but I can assure you that the populations of the UK and the US most certainly are not, and their respective governments will never take that risk.

its academic. face it.

 

[kirovman]

ok lets have a little social background here - im 23 years old have completed 1 years national service and am a university masters graduate.

ive fired rifles and driven in tanks and been stationed within meters of the enemy. its tense but there is a DMZ between us. ive been on long arduous training missions. to sum up i have had but a small taste of what military life is like.

i admit its not my aim to be a professinal combat soldier and i respect the men that do. combat roles are incredibly dangerous.

how about you? from what oh so high vantage point are you speaking? the liberal intelligentsia of south islington? let me guess - youd vote green or liberals correct?
anyway, anyone who comes up with "And if a woman has a chance of being captured and tortured by Iraqis, she's signed up to the same risks as the men." is obviously in cloud cukkoo land. there are many more ways to harm a woman, than there are a man - there is the sexual domination factor which you seemed to have glossed over. rape is a very powerful persuasion tool.

and again i keep stressing the point - women will never be as strong or have the same level of stamina as a man who has gone through the same training. thus, women are inferior soldiers. face it - its never going to happen, theres NO point arguing about it on the half life 2 forums. you liberals may be quite prepared to see women coming home in body bags in large numbers, but I can assure you that the populations of the UK and the US most certainly are not, and their respective governments will never take that risk.

its academic. face it.

See another stereotype.

I'm not a Liberal, I voted Labour. Just because I'm in favour of sexual equality doesn't make me a left wing nut. I consider myself a centrist.
My experience of military is limited to a couple of years of exercising with the TAs so I haven't been in the DMZ, but I know what the training's like. If a woman can cut it, I say let her.

There's far worse ways to torture a woman you say? And saying any woman will never have the endurance of any man in the military is a rash generalisation again. You seem to be pretty good at that, you've generalised woman, computer users as geeks, people in favour of gender equality as Liberals, and people who don't subscribe to military service as cowards. Laughable.

How about people who cut off the genitals of a man and burn them under his nose? Is that not as bad as the ways to torture a woman? Or electrocution of the same parts?

theres NO point arguing about it on the half life 2 forums

You say that, but here you are arguing.

 

[bliink]

omg you must actually be stupid. hands up here who has actually done any kind of military service - me. anyone else? bliink? oh no i forgot you just close threads all day long. if you have been in a military situation you are in far more of a position to talk about this than some computer geek who would never have the balls to join up anyway - its academic what you think.

Oh right.. I'm a forum mod so I have no idea what I'm saying.. gg.
You are able to prove members here are "geeks" about as much as your are able to prove you know what you're talking about.
"Its academic what you think" doesn't make any sense either.

puhhlease stop embarassing yourself. as Razor said hand to hand is a major part of war. what would a female soldier do in that scene in saving private ryan if it was real, which im sure it has been in many conflicts the world over? a 6ft plus Wafen-SS hyper-fit hyper-strong Nazi brandishing a sharpened blade in a battle of pure strength vs a woman?

Saving pvt ryan is fiction.
Even then, the German in the movie was some regular infantry average guy. A US marine would easily kill him. (witholding a mental implosion that the american dude in the movie suffered, which, I might add, happens to men more often than women)

what? would the woman just use her special moves and 'training' (care to be more specific on the training aspect?) to get out of that situation?

You're GI Joe.. Remember, I know nothing about military training do I?
Except the fact that it'd be highly unlikely a soldier would be seperated from his/her squad AND be without a sidearm. If that scenario occured, you'd be dead regardless of your gender.

no she would not be as strong and would be killed every single time.

Thats not even mathematically possible.

hand to hand combat in war is not like judo...

Oh right.. I forgot they fought a special kind of hand to hand during war.

hand to hand combat is about pure strength and stamina neither of which women possess on the same level that men do. this is why women arent allowed in front line units, among other reasons. and rightfully so.

I still think that is a moot point on the grounds that its not how modern war is conducted and there would still be ample physical strength in a woman to sustain self defense.

and what would happen to a woman if she were captured by a particularly nasty and brutal enemy who doesnt respect any national conventions?

lets take the iraqi army for example. you know what saddam's secret police torture method was for women? aside from raping them half to death of course. his interrogators would stick glass bottles into their vaginas (notice im being graphic so you understand the severity of what you are proposing here), stick them right up there, and then kick the woman in the womb until the bottle smashed.
thats the reality of war as it has always been - killing is not enough, its about suffering and there are people out there who will maximise any PoWs suffering. men are more resistant to this. Andy McNab was held for weeks on end without breaking down.

Your ability to use hyperbole doesn't really prove anything.
Female soldiers would accept that risk the same way male soldiers accept the risk that they might be killed.

understand the implications of what you are proposing before spouting off some politically correct bs next time pls.

There are very, very few implications for my postings on a website.
Don't think that by being condecending and patronising that you are winning an argument.

and the point about the IOs is that if a woman wants to protect her country (which is the main reason people join the army yes? not because they want to flip out like ninjas and kill people? i hope not anyway) she can do so in other more productive ways.

I don't know why a female would join the Army, but there are plenty who want to. Maybe their family has been infantry, maybe they like guns..

how about you? from what oh so high vantage point are you speaking? the liberal intelligentsia of south islington? let me guess - youd vote green or liberals correct?

My vantage point? merely that of an educated person.
If I was American I wouldn't vote green or liberal. Spouting generalisations and stereotypes gets you no ground in a debate.

 

[Tr0n]

Pffftt...we all know women can't fight worth shit.

Yea that's right...BRING IT!!!

 

[Cons Himself]

castration is not an effective torture technique. the threat of castration maybe, by castration causes massive blood loss unless the wound is cauterized and a sense of shock rather than pain which is the aim of torture.

please stop confusing gender equality as an ideal with women in combat roles in the army. men and women are different - therefore men perform physicsl tasks better than women. theres no reason why women should be discriminated against in any other form of work though - and yet they still are. i did some wage regressions during my degree on this and women still on average earn a hell of a lot less than men. isnt that a battle which is more worthwhile to be discussing? and i generalise because its the only way to be on the internet. it makes things more interesting if you can pin people down into certain groups.

Centurion, moi? I guess you must be Weenie, the committed male feminist then.

and a labour voter, let me guess - young, new labour voter right? how old are you? most young new labour voters hate the tories with a passion even though they were never old enough under Thatcher to remember what she did...ummm, yes a centrist. an advocate of new labour and the third way. fairly intelligent, definitely centre-left leaning member of the intelligentsia - it would really cap it all off if you lived in islington...

 

[kirovman]

castration is not an effective torture technique. the threat of castration maybe, by castration causes massive blood loss unless the wound is cauterized and a sense of shock rather than pain which is the aim of torture.

please stop confusing gender equality as an ideal with women in combat roles in the army. men and women are different - therefore men perform physicsl tasks better than women. theres no reason why women should be discriminated against in any other form of work though - and yet they still are. i did some wage regressions during my degree on this and women still on average earn a hell of a lot less than men. isnt that a battle which is more worthwhile to be discussing? and i generalise because its the only way to be on the internet. it makes things more interesting if you can pin people down into certain groups.

Centurion, moi? I guess you must be Weenie, the committed male feminist then.

and a labour voter, let me guess - young, new labour voter right? how old are you? most young new labour voters hate the tories with a passion even though they were never old enough under Thatcher to remember what she did...ummm, yes a centrist. an advocate of new labour and the third way. fairly intelligent, definitely centre-left leaning member of the intelligentsia - it would really cap it all off if you lived in islington...

So you know all about castration right? It must have been painful, but it wasn't so effective in torturing you right?

I don't hate anyone. You're generalising again. "Most new Labour voters..." Wow, 5 stereotypes in 1 topic! I'm impressed! I presume you conducted these surveys yourself?

"Tell me New Labour voter, do you hate the Tories?"

Being in favour of equality does NOT equal feminism. Actually feminists annoy me as much as male chauvanists, so heh, your generalisation referring to me is moot.

I actually have a great deal of respect for some past Tory leaders - So I don't think that makes me an uber-liberal femanist. I judge people on their actions, not their political stance.

And FYI, no I don't live in Islington. Sorry to disappoint your stereotype yet again

 

[Absinthe]

Oh, this is just rich. Character analysis over the ****in' web.

On-topic: I see nothing wrong with women in the military. There's nothing stopping a female from becoming a physically fit fighting machine capable of killing others. And in an age of mechanical warfare where people are primarily fighting with projectiles over extended distances, I see little point in physical discrimination aside from the obvious (ie. should have good eyesight, should be in shape to a certain degree, etc).

Are women, on average, as strong as men? No, not when you factor in genetic predispositions and social norms. But put both sexes under rigorous military training for some time and I think you'll find that any difference is a negligible one.

 

[kirovman]

Oh, this is just rich. Character analysis over the ****in' web.

Sorry.

I'll stop now before I break the internets.

 

[Cons Himself]

bliink fact is after posting on forums for a long time, i have always come to the conclusion that people who break down other people's posts into a long series of quotes are incapable of forming coherent paragraphed arguments.

The fact is my military experience makes me more qualified to talk about this than YOU. So lets start again shall we? The German dude in Saving Private Ryan was a Waffen-SS soldier - notice his distinctive lightning strike 'SS' epaulettes. The elite of the elite in the German army, absolutely brainwashed and committed to fighting till the death. A US marine would not easily kill a guy like this. Remember at this point the SS divisions were battle hardened men, some from the Eastern Front, some from Africa some from the West. These were the guys who executed British PoWs at Dunkirk. Their most feared division was the concentration camp guards, the Totenkoph (Deaths Head) division. These were among the most feared soldiers of WW2, so simply stating that a US marine would 'easily take him out' is ridiculous. So there I have prooved you wrong.
Now you also state in the same breath I might add that men suffer mental breakdowns more often than women. Firstly what methodology could proove a hypothesis like that, and what research has been done on this. Isnt it a bit subjective and hard to proove? again you are waffling BS.

Now your general argument seems to boil down to the point that modern war is not so physical as it used to be, thus women should play a combat role. My first assertion would be: How do you know this? Please I would love to know of your first hand military experience which gives you the insight necessary to make blanket statements like that. God, you should definitely be part of the Chiefs of Staff to advise them on issues of this kind of importance.
My second assertion would be not only do you not have any first hand experience to back up your view of the physicality of war, you also have no notion of the fact that yes, war is still physical and strength and stamina are vital parts of a soldiers armoury. You state women would be able to defend themselves hand to hand "in the extremely unlikely even of hand to hand combat". Firstly, hand to hand combat is a vital part of a soldiers training - thats why they are taught it.
Hand to hand is based on strength. Women are weaker than men, simply because they do not produce testosterone - the hormone that affects muscle formation among other things It also produces heightened levels of aggression, another vital part of a soldiers armoury, which women do not possess in the same quanitites as men do. Finally, women have less stamina than men. Why do you think over long distances like marathons, mens times are always quicker than womens? Because due to their testosterone, men have higher stamina levels than women. Stamina is important, especially in the special forces where you may be forced to march for days at a time with 70kgs of kit on your back - this is more than most women weigh.

In closing id just like to say that you really are missing the point here - you dont think about the consequences of such a policy, if it were introduced (which it never will be by the way).
Women coming home in body bags, whether you like it or not, has a different effect on the public psyche than men coming home in body bags. End of story - thats how it is. Women being tortured would have a different effect on the public psyche than men being tortured. Hell im a man and I dont mind that - id fight to protect my girlfriend, I wouldnt expect her to protect me in the street late at night if something were to happen. Anyway, think about those bodybag and tortured and raped women coming home traumatised, think about the effect that would have on public morale in a war situation. In other words THINK before opening your mouth next time you spout some ridiculous supposedly egalitarian views, which arent helpful to anybody.

 

[Absinthe]

Sorry.

I'll stop now before I break the internets.

Why are you apologizing?

 

[Cons Himself]

So you know all about castration right? It must have been painful, but it wasn't so effective in torturing you right?

I don't hate anyone. You're generalising again. "Most new Labour voters..." Wow, 5 stereotypes in 1 topic! I'm impressed! I presume you conducted these surveys yourself?

"Tell me New Labour voter, do you hate the Tories?"

Being in favour of equality does NOT equal feminism. Actually feminists annoy me as much as male chauvanists, so heh, your generalisation referring to me is moot.

I actually have a great deal of respect for some past Tory leaders - So I don't think that makes me an uber-liberal femanist. I judge people on their actions, not their political stance.

And FYI, no I don't live in Islington. Sorry to disappoint your stereotype yet again

Like I have pointed out - I have no problem making generalisations. Life would be oh so boring without them. Imagine if we couldnt poke fun at stereotypes = comedy would not exist. So get down off your high horse and tell me if you have ever laughed at a stereotype before?

I thought so.

 

[Absinthe]

What does comedy have to do with your sad attempts at character analysis?

 

[kirovman]

Like I have pointed out - I have no problem making generalisations. Life would be oh so boring without them. Imagine if we couldnt poke fun at stereotypes = comedy would not exist. So get down off your high horse and tell me if you have ever laughed at a stereotype before?

I thought so.

I thought this was a discussion, not a comedy show?

Never Mind.

Why are you apologizing?

Because I fed the troll.

 

[Cons Himself]

Oh, this is just rich. Character analysis over the ****in' web.

On-topic: I see nothing wrong with women in the military. There's nothing stopping a female from becoming a physically fit fighting machine capable of killing others. And in an age of mechanical warfare where people are primarily fighting with projectiles over extended distances, I see little point in physical discrimination aside from the obvious (ie. should have good eyesight, should be in shape to a certain degree, etc).

Are women, on average, as strong as men? No, not when you factor in genetic predispositions and social norms. But put both sexes under rigorous military training for some time and I think you'll find that any difference is a negligible one.

Again you are missing the point like most people. Being a soldier requires two main physical qualities: strength and stamina.

Women will never be as strong as men or have a mans level of stamina, or a mans larger bone (lol) structure. This is because of testosterone. A woman could go to the gym every day of the week for a year - shed have a great body, but she wouldnt have muscles even comparable to a man who did the same without taking anabolic supplements or hormones. Are you suggesting women put their long term health at risk in order that they take dangerous supplements to join the military? I hope not.

 

[Cons Himself]

I thought this was a discussion, not a comedy show?

Never Mind.

Yes but theres nothing like a bit of satire in a serious discussion is there. Have you tried Private Eye? Guaranteed to leave you feeling great (TM).

 

[kirovman]

Yes but theres nothing like a bit of satire in a serious discussion is there. Have you tried Private Eye? Guaranteed to leave you feeling great (TM).

Private Eye and Viz are good satirical reads.

 

[Cons Himself]

yes, though Punch is awful, though being owned by the Fugger, of course it would be.

I do prefer the more serious stuff in the Eye though: Street of Shame, In the City, Rotten Boroughs, HP Sauce etc.

 

[Absinthe]

Again you are missing the point like most people. Being a soldier requires two main physical qualities: strength and stamina.

Women will never be as strong as men or have a mans level of stamina, or a mans larger bone (lol) structure. This is because of testosterone. A woman could go to the gym every day of the week for a year - shed have a great body, but she wouldnt have muscles even comparable to a man who did the same without taking anabolic supplements or hormones. Are you suggesting women put their long term health at risk in order that they take dangerous supplements to join the military? I hope not.

You don't need to be a rippping imitation of Mr. Universe in order to be in a sufficient physical state. Women are more than capable of achieving such a thing. Will they, on average, be equal or above men? Probably not. But again, it's an almost negligible difference considering warfare as it is nowadays. Even if a woman cannot physically equal a male in terms of brute strength, it does not invalidate other skills she may have.
Our army is not a breed of ubermenschen dictated solely by physical properties. It is made up of willing, loyal, and competent volunteers. Physical fitness is important, but I'd say that mental acuity on the battlefield is the the most important aspect to consider. In this respect, I don't see why it should be an issue for a woman to join.

BTW Although I do not doubt you when you claim to have military experience, please realize that waving it around on a forum does not grant you de facto authority on this topic. And I'm also still trying to figure out where Saving Private Ryan fits into all this...

 

[Cons Himself]

I was using the example of the part where the SS soldier and the American are locked in a life or death struggle to illustrate the fact that brute strength is extremely important in hand to hand combat. The SS soldier manages to slowly slowly through brute strength force th dagger into the American's chest. Its quite gruesome really.

Whilst you believe that this is less a part of war nowadays I would have to say - no less than the days of WW2 and the advent of mobile war. And it all depends what you mean by adequte physical state - I can tell you, you can never have too much stamina or too much strength as a soldier. Of course this is more important in the Marines and Special Forces than it is in Regular or Reserve units, simply because men in these units are expected to run 40kms a day with full kit and fight a battle at the end of it. They are expected to stay undercover in enemy territory for days at a time without food. Or to not sleep for days on end as a sniper waiting for a shot. This all requires stamina which men have in more abundance than women.

As for the physicality vs mental acuity part. Not really. Combat training is more about over-riding the flee instinct, than complex mathematical formulae pertaining to the angles of artillery emplacements. This is what soldiers mean when they talk about 'the training kicking in'. Its simply brainwashing you to overcome every nerve ending in your being telling you to flee froma dangerous situation.

And BTW to you too, military experience, whilst not giving me ultimate authority I admit, does give me more than you.

 

[The Dark Elf]

crap snipped

Just out of interest, if your so convinced women are weaker, shouldn't get involved etc. etc. yada yada and so on. How come its the female moderator you pick a fight with, rather than someone male and "your own size"?

Also she's doing a much better job at keeping calm in this discussion than you are. Turning to personal comments and attacks on grammar, just because she's right and your wrong.

 

[Cons Himself]

Just out of interest, if your so convinced women are weaker, shouldn't get involved etc. etc. yada yada and so on. How come its the female moderator you pick a fight with, rather than someone male and "your own size"?

Also she's doing a much better job at keeping calm in this discussion than you are. Turning to personal comments and attacks on grammar, just because she's right and your wrong.

Firstly this is an online discussion not a fight. Are you suggesting that because bliink is female she possesses a mind less sharp than mine? I hope not

Secondly, I never instigated once a personal attack on her - please point out any personal insults I made. Furthermore it was not an attack on grammar per se, more an attack on the fact that people who cant form coherent arguments often use this method on forums to continue a debate. If you've ever watched PMQs you would know that Tony Blair does not answer Michael Howards points one at a time, indeed, it could be argued he doesnt answer them at all, but that is immaterial Rather, he listens to the argument being made, forms a counter-argument, and puts it across coherently, not dis-jointedly.

ok?

Ps nearly 16000 posts in a year and a half? thats like 30 posts a day.

holy canoli!

 

[The Dark Elf]

Firstly this is an online discussion not a fight. Are you suggesting that because bliink is female she possesses a mind less sharp than mine? I hope not

Actually it was you suggesting that, but nice try trying to twist my words

Secondly, I never instigated once a personal attack on her - please point out any personal insults I made. Furthermore it was not an attack on grammar per se, more an attack on the fact that people who cant form coherent arguments often use this method on forums to continue a debate.

ok?

Your posts were insulting towards a number of users, assuming women have no place in a military environment, just because their women, you claim to know all about it. You've spammed this thread in desperation for someone, anyone to listen to you.

Just think for a minute, your lots of effort into trying to well.. win an argument, in a small section of a forum that most people don't even know exists. Hardly what I would call a victory, or even remotely worth the time it takes you to write each post.

As for replying using quotes from someone's posts. Thats called netiquette, its easier for others to read and follow the flow of the conversation. For someone who claims to have posted on lots of forums, I would have thought you'd know that by now. :upstare:

If you've ever watched PMQs you would know that Tony Blair does not answer Michael Howards points one at a time, indeed, it could be argued he doesnt answer them at all, but that is immaterial Rather, he listens to the argument being made, forms a counter-argument, and puts it across coherently, not dis-jointedly.

Modeling yourself on how politicians behave isn't very clever, They don't answer questions directly, for one reason and one reason alone. They can't give a straight honest answer, prefering to flipflop with half answers and questions in reply to questions.

 

[Absinthe]

I was using the example of the part where the SS soldier and the American are locked in a life or death struggle to illustrate the fact that brute strength is extremely important in hand to hand combat. The SS soldier manages to slowly slowly through brute strength force th dagger into the American's chest. Its quite gruesome really.

Whilst you believe that this is less a part of war nowadays I would have to say - no less than the days of WW2 and the advent of mobile war. And it all depends what you mean by adequte physical state - I can tell you, you can never have too much stamina or too much strength as a soldier. Of course this is more important in the Marines and Special Forces than it is in Regular or Reserve units, simply because men in these units are expected to run 40kms a day with full kit and fight a battle at the end of it. They are expected to stay undercover in enemy territory for days at a time without food. Or to not sleep for days on end as a sniper waiting for a shot. This all requires stamina which men have in more abundance than women.

As for the physicality vs mental acuity part. Not really. Combat training is more about over-riding the flee instinct, than complex mathematical formulae pertaining to the angles of artillery emplacements. This is what soldiers mean when they talk about 'the training kicking in'. Its simply brainwashing you to overcome every nerve ending in your being telling you to flee froma dangerous situation.

First of all, you're employing a slippery slope. In your Private Ryan example, a woman can still be capable of surviving such a situation (or depending on how you look at it, capable of plunging a knife through an enemy combatant's chest). And your talk about torture methods employed against women is an appeal to emotion rather than an actual substantial argument. It's arguable that males can go through just as harsh treatment. And even so, you are not enlisting with the intention of getting tortured, just like you're not gonna have the intention to be killed. I wouldn't say that how the enemy treats its prisoners is irrelevant, but it's not something that's considered when you're recruiting.
Yes, Special Forces and Marines do require stamina... which you have not proven to be lacking in women. Really though, I'm not arguing that women on average are on par with men in terms of strength and stamina. What I am arguing is that women are not incapable of achieving a sufficient physical state. Candidates for the Special Forces and other specialized units should be reviewed case by case. They should not be disregarded depending on sex.
And I'd argue that mental acuity is more than fighting the urge to flee. While I'd say it's definitely a part of the training, a soldier should have a good degree of situational awareness, accuracy, level-headedness, and have tactical competency. Again, I argue that women are fully capable of attaining such things.

And BTW to you too, military experience, whilst not giving me ultimate authority I admit, does give me more than you.

Not really. Even if I do believe you (which I do), I'm not seeing any credentials. And even then, just because one may be a part of something does not necessarily mean one understands it. So really, the only thing I'm going to take into account is your argumentation itself. Anything outside of that is irrelevant.

 

[Cons Himself]

In reply to The Dark Elf:

Yes but debating is not a skill of quoting and and replying - thats called journalism. Whilst politicians may not answer questions directly, it does not mean that you can unpeel them like an orange to reveal their underlying ideology.
Anyway.
We here are debating the role of women in the military yes? Ok then - lets do that shall we?

Now to your point. I would've thought someone intelligent like you who can form arguments would have been quick to realise his own mistake:

""Just out of interest, if your so convinced women are weaker, shouldn't get involved etc. etc. yada yada and so on. How come its the female moderator you pick a fight with, rather than someone male and "your own size"?""

Why should I NOT have an intellectual argument with a female poster because I believe females are physically weaker than males and are thus unsuited to the military? Wherein does that suggest females possess a mind that is less sharp than a males? That I should be so bold! I am sure there are many females out there far cleverer than I.

And possible the most arrogant thing I have read on this entire thread is your assertion that because my viewpoint of women in the military does not coincide with others, that I am somehow insulting them? My god, is this the ultimate in happy-clappyness. Dont disagree with me because I may feel insulted.

 

[Cons Himself]

First of all, you're employing a slippery slope. In your Private Ryan example, a woman can still be capable of surviving such a situation (or depending on how you look at it, capable of plunging a knife through an enemy combatant's chest). And your talk about torture methods employed against women is an appeal to emotion rather than an actual substantial argument. It's arguable that males can go through just as harsh treatment. And even so, you are not enlisting with the intention of getting tortured, just like you're not gonna have the intention to be killed. I wouldn't say that how the enemy treats its prisoners is irrelevant, but it's not something that's considered when you're recruiting.
Yes, Special Forces and Marines do require stamina... which you have not proven to be lacking in women. Really though, I'm not arguing that women on average are on par with men in terms of strength and stamina. What I am arguing is that women are not incapable of achieving a sufficient physical state. Candidates for the Special Forces and other specialized units should be reviewed case by case. They should not be disregarded depending on sex.
And I'd argue that mental acuity is more than fighting the urge to flee. While I'd say it's definitely a part of the training, a soldier should have a good degree of situational awareness, accuracy, level-headedness, and have tactical competency. Again, I argue that women are fully capable of attaining such things.



Not really. Even if I do believe you (which I do), I'm not seeing any credentials. And even then, just because one may be a part of something does not necessarily mean one understands it. So really, the only thing I'm going to take into account is your argumentation itself. Anything outside of that is irrelevant.

First off, being part of something gives you more insight into it than someone who is exogenous. That much is undisputable. Let me give you an example. In hand to hand combat training it is impressed upon you that physical strength and conditioning are extremely important in successfully surviving a hand to hand encounter. Did you know that? Women are weaker than men yes? Thus they are at a disadvantage in hand to hand combat.

As for stamina - look at marathon race times. Why are men always quicker than women? Furthermore, in terms of the training - what do you know about it? Have you undergone military training? The main over riding theme of military training is switching off to the flee instinct. Thats it. All other parts of the training, whether physical or tactical are subjective to this.

Finally, in terms of the policy debate, my appeal to emotion as you call it is a fact of life in our socieities. Which government is going to risk the political fallout of women coming home en masse in body bags?

 

[Shippi]

Cons Himself, I love how you assume that your 'military experience' means you're the authority on this subject. It doesn’t mean a thing. In my opinion it takes a lot more than strength and stamina to be able to prevail in war.

I've never seen Private Ryan, or the scene which you insist proves that women are physically incapable of fighting. Women are NOT as strong as men, I’m not denying that, but just because they’re not, it doesn’t mean they would lose every hand to hand battle they find themselves in (which I doubt would be many). They would be at a disadvantage, but a knife to the chest is a knife to the chest, regardless of who’s administering it . Women are more than capable of doing that. Brute strength would help, but wits and the ability to keep on thinking straight would be far more useful, I think. I’m not saying men can’t do that, just that women can too.
You seem to have a very black and white view on this. “All women = weak! All men = strong! Strength = winning! Men > women!”

Hand to hand combat isn’t a major part of warfare now. So women shouldn’t be denied a place in the military because of that. We can operate firearms just as well as men, there’s no reason why we can’t (although I’m sure you’ll find one).

Men are just as likely to break during torture than women. Don’t women have higher pain thresholds too? Yes, there are horrific things you can do to a women, but there are horrific things you can do to men, too. You just think it’s more horrific, because you believe women are the weaker sex and shouldn’t be subjected to that kind of treatment. NO ONE should have to be tortured, male or female.

Finally, in terms of the policy debate, my appeal to emotion as you call it is a fact of life in our socieities. Which government is going to risk the political fallout of women coming home en masse in body bags?

A dead person is a dead person, regardless of gender. To me, it doesn’t matter whether the person who dies is male or female; it’s a sad sight regardless. Everyone who fights in these wars knows the risks. There is a chance that they will die. The women know that just as much as the men. But unfortunately, knowing women are dying is such more of a big deal to men because of how protective they are. No government would allow women equal rights in the military because of how horrified the general public would be…

 

[Razor]

Cons Himself, as strong, fit, fast, intelligent and experienced you are, there is a woman out there that is stronger, fitter, faster and more intelligent. Given that fact, should she be told she can't be on the front line when she is more capable then you for being there?

And generally, training to cope with torture and things of that nature don't really come into it until you start training for the special forces.

 

[The Dark Elf]

In reply to The Dark Elf:

Yes but debating is not a skill of quoting and and replying - thats called journalism. Whilst politicians may not answer questions directly, it does not mean that you can unpeel them like an orange to reveal their underlying ideology.
Anyway.
We here are debating the role of women in the military yes? Ok then - lets do that shall we?

Now to your point. I would've thought someone intelligent like you who can form arguments would have been quick to realise his own mistake:

""Just out of interest, if your so convinced women are weaker, shouldn't get involved etc. etc. yada yada and so on. How come its the female moderator you pick a fight with, rather than someone male and "your own size"?""

Why should I NOT have an intellectual argument with a female poster because I believe females are physically weaker than males and are thus unsuited to the military? Wherein does that suggest females possess a mind that is less sharp than a males? That I should be so bold! I am sure there are many females out there far cleverer than I.

And possible the most arrogant thing I have read on this entire thread is your assertion that because my viewpoint of women in the military does not coincide with others, that I am somehow insulting them? My god, is this the ultimate in happy-clappyness. Dont disagree with me because I may feel insulted.

Arrogance? you wanna see arrogance?

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/search.php?searchid=412826

There's your arrogance.

A woman is just as capable of fighting as a man, moreso infact BECAUSE of the effect they have on people such as yourself. It's not about how strong you are, its how you think, and women are well known to be able to multitask and think differently to men, clearer and not hung up on things. So you kinda nullify your own points by admitting women are smarter, thus being better fighters.

You might aswell just agree to disagree on this.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Interestingly, there was a TV series in the UK a couple of years ago, called "SAS - are you tough enough" in which a bunch of members of the public went through a (shortened) version of the SAS training, supervised by a group of ex-SAS soldiers.
This covered everything from physical endurance tests, interrogations, to full group exercises. At each stage, the weakest contestants were eliminated by the staff.

Guess who won?

That's right. A woman. She beat out a load of big, strapping men (and women), despite being generally quite short and wiry. These weren't just average joes either - all were extremely athletic - everyone had to pass a stringent fitness test.

In interviews after the show, several of the ex-SAS guys said that they believed women should be allowed in the Regiment - if they can complete the training, they're good enough.

 

[Absinthe]

First off, being part of something gives you more insight into it than someone who is exogenous.

Not necessarily. An objective outside view of something can often produce far more valid information regarding a topic. But that's really beside the point. I'm judging your arguments on their own merit. Your military background matters little to me.

That much is undisputable. Let me give you an example. In hand to hand combat training it is impressed upon you that physical strength and conditioning are extremely important in successfully surviving a hand to hand encounter. Did you know that? Women are weaker than men yes? Thus they are at a disadvantage in hand to hand combat.

Capability being fulfilled with training. Reviewing people case by case. Or did you ignore all that?

As for stamina - look at marathon race times. Why are men always quicker than women? Furthermore, in terms of the training - what do you know about it? Have you undergone military training? The main over riding theme of military training is switching off to the flee instinct. Thats it. All other parts of the training, whether physical or tactical are subjective to this.

I think Razor said it best here.

"Cons Himself, as strong, fit, fast, intelligent and experienced you are, there is a woman out there that is stronger, fitter, faster and more intelligent. Given that fact, should she be told she can't be on the front line when she is more capable then you for being there?"

And no, I have not undergone military training. But I know people that have and I have heard their accounts. At this point, I don't feel like throwing their word up against yours. So we'll just leave it at that. It's irrelevant to the fact that you need a certain degree of mental acuity on the battlefield, regardless of wether or not you were instructed with it.

Finally, in terms of the policy debate, my appeal to emotion as you call it is a fact of life in our socieities. Which government is going to risk the political fallout of women coming home en masse in body bags?

It's still irrelevant. It's a stupid bait and switch tactic that serves to distance yourself from the original argument. You can talk about political fallout all you want. But such an argument doesn't address the capabilities of women in the military.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

i say replace all men (everywhere, military, gov., civil jobs, everywhere) with women, and see what happens

 

[DrDevin]

i say replace all men (everywhere, military, gov., civil jobs, everywhere) with women, and see what happens

A little bit overboard but I was kind of thinking the same thing. I was thinking of a simulation of a battle or two with a squad of males against females. Now using the power of generalization (which has been proven to be usually correct) the male squad would have the advantage of strength while the females would be neutral (or maybe have patience/intelligence on their side, depending on the individuals or they might have no strenghths just weaknesses).

What would be your strategy as the males?
1) I would go in for close combat if there was the appropriate surroundings (city).
2) Sprint around to flank the group as fast as possible as they probably (generalization) are not as fast/have as much endurance as the males.
3) As has been previously mentioned they do have certain physical attributes that would cause discomfort in the field. The males could wait it out and try to reduce the females moral before attacking.

In conclusion the females could also use these tactics against the males but they would not be as sucessful on average (generalization) as the males making them more likely to suffer casualties.

My oppinion is that sure females should be able to do whatever a man can do in the militairy I just think they will never (and should never) make up the majority of soldiers until the US finishes up research and creation of exoskeletons and other muscuar augumentations that would bring a female up to a males physical performance which would allow them to equal or surpass a mans effectiveness.

I think most of you agree females = should be in army but usually worse then men by a little bit

 

[iyfyoufhl]

as i said before, i don't think a lot of men trust women with weapons, i mean come on, no one takes women cops seriosly, during a real war (i mean real. like wwII) women would simply would not withstand all the difficalties and sufferings of the real war, not that iraq shit

i bet when women got into military, napaleon, and other great generals of the past, turned in their graves

 

[Cons Himself]

A lot of people on here are talking a lot of rubbish.

First usual BS argument.

Training is more important than physical attributes.
Wrong, training and physical attributes are equally important.

Second usual BS argument.

There will always be a stronger woman out there than you.
Yes, maybe than me. Stronger and fitter than a Delta? Nein.

Third usual BS argument.
Men dont want women in the army because they are protective of women.
Yes men are protective of women - are you not protective of your girlfriend, of your wife of your partner? Or have you just never experienced that feeling?

PS The Dark Elf: Again you havent answered my points about how I am insulting people here - sure I disagree with them. Thats the point of a debate - you have two opposing points of view. If you feel so insulted Mr Hyper-Sensitive by my viewpoint why dont you tell someone who cares. Oh. And your link doesnt work either. GG.

 

[Absinthe]

First usual BS argument.

Training is more important than physical attributes.
Wrong, training and physical attributes are equally important.

I don't think anybody's said such a thing. I personally have been arguing that it's not just about physical attributes. But from the way you've been presenting your posts, it would seem that you place a disproportionate amount of emphasis on them.

Second usual BS argument.

There will always be a stronger woman out there than you.
Yes, maybe than me. Stronger and fitter than a Delta? I doubt it.

But you then admit that there is no problem with women serving in the armed forces, on the ground level? And of course you're not going to get women stronger than people in Delta. Not with the current discrimination in place. It's not like they have the chance.

 

[Vigilante]

As many of you know, I'm a republican, and I do disagree with this. Women should be allowed in. But seriously, you guys need to stop acting like republicans are these god loving assholes who don't care about anybody. Albeit, if Kerry had won all of the republicans would be bitching to their hearts desire.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

i bet when women got into military, napaleon, and other great generals of the past, turned in their graves

Napoleon famously lost. Great example.