Women In the Infantry

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

You really love your strawman arguments. I will give you that. No one was trying to silence you, and then you called everyone trying to do that to you, which I remind you is no one, a hippie, because they like to fly by and get these threads locked. Then you went from that to tolerance, which you show little of, and now it's on to the 1st amendment. [:D]

You should be writing for soap operas or something. Can't wait to see what's next.

What are you talking about …….
seriously why do you keep saying that, you might want to actually read what people are saying . I said don’t buy into Race or Politics being muzzle loaded into the debate. it doesn’t take Dick Tracy to figure something so out of context inserted into the conversation only has one motive.

Either way, I was just pulling your chain anyhow in my last post………

It’s hard to debate here at Matrix what we all know was a purely a political play, believe me the hippies here know this and will use their hit ‘n run tactics to censor all difference of opinion……..don’t buy in,it will only play into their intolerance and shutdown the thread.

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: parusski

But why don't you respond to the ideas that women should play in the NFL, NBA, MLB and NCAA against men? Let's back away from hippies, strawmen and soap operas.

So, Qwixt, since blacks were discriminated against based on perceived(wrongly)social inferiority let's leave that tired argument alone. If you have no problem with women in combat, do you agree that women's restrooms should be open to men?? Should college sororities be open to men joining? Finally, should women's Olympic mountain biking, which has separate men's and women's competions, be integrated?

PLEASE just tell us you support these ideas. If you do, then I applaud your consistency.

Here is my post (#12) from the first page:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

I don't think they belong on the front lines because men and women are not physically equal. They just aren't. I was in a combat MOS in the army, 12B, and the physical lifting requirements were quite demanding. I think most females would have been a weakness.

Our battalion had a 100 mile march context to see which two companies would represent it in an event. It was between 4 companies that sent about 15-20 people each. Two of them were support companies with females, and the other two were combat (like mine) or just sent men. The two with females couldn't even complete the event.

You really need to read better.

[wodin]

I'm a Hippy. Long hair..love psych music..peace and love

[Laz]

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

I served 10 yrs in the US Army. 
....edit
  Also what happens when one is captured?  Fair treatment no such thing.  I would come home beaten and broken, a woman would come home beaten, broken, raped and maybe pregnant.  This is what bothers me.

I think there is the bigger picture that a lot of folks seem to not see because of the proverbial tree in the forest. Your last sentence suggests that it will bother you what could happen to a woman soldier, which says it won't bother you if it happens to a male. I think that is a natural instinct- but I think we need to recognize that war is an insane horror that we must try to avoid. Think of it, a political or cultural difference of ideas cause masses of people who never met to race to a front line to slaughter. I think that should bother you, and perhaps by placing women in combat roles society might give a second thought to negotiating disagreements peacefully.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: laszlozoltan

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

I served 10 yrs in the US Army. 
....edit
  Also what happens when one is captured?  Fair treatment no such thing.  I would come home beaten and broken, a woman would come home beaten, broken, raped and maybe pregnant.  This is what bothers me.

..... and perhaps by placing women in combat roles society might give a second thought to negotiating disagreements peacefully.

warspite1

Not likely though is it??

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I'm a Hippy. Long hair..love psych music..peace and love

Most of my hair is gone. No being a hippy for me.

[Laz]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


Is this serious thought?

First off, people do not join to "die for their country". That is one of the stupidest things I hear parroted often. A person joins to serve their country and protect it (and The Constitution) from outside harm. Any one who served can tell you that a soldier is willing to lay down his life for a fellow soldier.

I was being facetious about the dying for you country, just like the joke that you joined to serve your country and protect it and the constitution- because be honest, you didn't- you did it to serve yourself by agreeing to try to kill someone else on orders from your commander, right? you maybe finished high school and had nowhere to go other than flipping burgers at mcdonalds, or you got a college degree in basket weaving or some other field that left you pretty much unqualified for doing anything more than flipping burgers at mcdonalds, except this time you'd have a sheepskin to hang on the wall beside the grill station- so you thought you'd escape the rat race that everyone else has to fight through and go into this gentle, mans world where all your decisions are made for you; a world of men, living with men, sleeping with men, eating, showering, crapping and no women to bother you. Ah yes ! How proud you must have felt when you signed up and got though basic training- but the real secret that you never told anyone is why you really joined. Thats the joke.

Equal rights does not mean equal ability. Especially in the area of physical ability. It's not about push ups or the ability to keep up on a run. It's about a woman being able to assist picking up a wounded 200 lb man and carrying him to safety.
It's also about the male inherent instinct to protect females.
There are differences between men and women that should be kept that way.
The military has reduced standards for physical requirements to allow women to serve. That is a fact.

Gender difference exists and it needs to be addressed properly.

Question: how many soldiers could meet the standard requirements 5 years into the service ? most folk get older get lazier, get comfortable, get fat. gender difference means nothing- not in the age of firearms, neither does age, or health- a 200 pound soldier is too heavy; there are no 200 pound marathon runners, or competitive swimmers or cyclists- you go on about physical ability, but ignore the limitations- what purpose do push-ups serve in combat ? women peak around age 30 and maintain physical strength and ability through to age 50+ while men generally peak around 30 and start to decline thereafter. You are just pulling rules for standard requirements as though it has any relevance to the job- exerting political force through the barrel of a gun, which as we have seen since firearms came into the picture, is childs play. so wheres your gender difference now ? sorry mr delta force ranger commander, your 24hour record pushups meant nothing to the kid who got you with the ak 47

Does a woman have equal rights as a citizen, of course. Do those rights ensure her she can join and serve, of course. But those rights should also be pared with the ability to perform the tasks needed to be part of the team. Put them through the PT and obstacle courses from twenty to thirty years ago and require them to keep up will make them quite equal, if they can complete them.

Equality as you seem think is what turned the French Revolution into a bloody and negative event.

Why do you bring blacks into the discussion for?

boy, my argument went way over your head in that one huh ? I am wondering how Dr Suess might put this for you, Sam; I used as hypothetical ( that means "I made it up for the sake of the argument") statement to construct a rule which I could use to exclude a percentage of people (they be of any other color) for no other reason than the sake of exclusion. The rest of your post is just rubbish as well, and as you seem to be unable to deal with concepts I might as well leave this at that.

[martok]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

As long as the physical requirements are the same with everyone I don't mind.

This is my view as well. I'll admit I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea, but would be okay with it as long this was the case.

Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, it doesn't seem like it's going to work out that way.

ORIGINAL: parusski

"In the 1990s, the British army, under political pressure to put women in traditional male jobs, adopted a “gender-free” policy with identical fitness requirements for both sexes and abandoned its “gender fair” system of separate standards.
A decade later, Dr. Ian Gemmel conducted a study for the British army’s personnel center. He found that the number of women who could qualify for basic training decreased in the “gender-free” system, as more women dropped out of training because of injury, compared with the “gender fair” system of separate fitness requirements.
This study confirms and quantifies the excess risk for women when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits,” Dr. Gemmel reported."

I would have no objection to a "gender-free" policy as outlined above. That may be the best way to go (if there is a "best" way, that is).

[SapperAstro_MatrixForum]

Does a woman have equal rights as a citizen, of course. Do those rights ensure her she can join and serve, of course. But those rights should also be pared with the ability to perform the tasks needed to be part of the team. Put them through the PT and obstacle courses from twenty to thirty years ago and require them to keep up will make them quite equal, if they can complete them.

This covers things nicely.

Question: how many soldiers could meet the standard requirements 5 years into the service ?

They have to. It is all part of the deal. Constant training, with yearly testing.

I think somebody broke laszlozoltans' mind. Congrats guys...

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: laszlozoltan

I was being facetious about the dying for you country, just like the joke that you joined to serve your country and protect it and the constitution- because be honest, you didn't- you did it to serve yourself by agreeing to try to kill someone else on orders from your commander, right?

Question: how many soldiers could meet the standard requirements 5 years into the service ? most folk get older get lazier, get comfortable, get fat. gender difference means nothing- not in the age of firearms, neither does age, or health- a 200 pound soldier is too heavy; there are no 200 pound marathon runners, or competitive swimmers or cyclists- you go on about physical ability, but ignore the limitations- what purpose do push-ups serve in combat ?

What is wrong with you ?
why are you attacking ‘n mocking someone’s military service , it’s obvious you have a strange/bazaar opinion of the military and its personal...........but certainly there is places on the web you can vent your outrage of both besides a wargamming forum …………[;)]

[DOCUP]

Laszlozoltan:
Yes, I have a problem with women being captured or tortured.  I also have a problem with the same happening to men.  I don't like war any more than you do.  I would love to see an end to all of man kinds suffering.  But it won't happen just like war will always be here.  I do not know what country or region you are from.  I also don't know of your upbringing.  You may think that I am not intelligent enough since I was in the military.  I hold 3 different college degree's. I joined because I felt that I had a debt to pay to those men and women who kept me free, either during war time or peace time.  I also wanted college money, I was smart enought to realize that my parents could not afford my tuition and planned a way for me to repay my debt and get a free education along with job training.  I got to see the world, different cultures, grow up and respect what I have and to hold on to it. 
 
In most cases military personnel do not start wars.  It is the politicans that do.  I also do not agree with the vicious attack on MrRoadrunner.  That was uncalled for and very rude.  I took that as an insult to me also.  I responded to your message in a polite and open way.  I am more than willing to listen to yours or anyone elses thoughts on this matter.  But lets be adults here and respect everyone elses.  I understand tempers can flare up and get the best of us.  Be an adult and apologize to MrRoadrunner and show us that you are a person that can sit down and express his/her opinions openly and respectfully.  If you can do this I will do the same to you.  Have a nice day.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: laszlozoltan

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


Is this serious thought?

First off, people do not join to "die for their country". That is one of the stupidest things I hear parroted often. A person joins to serve their country and protect it (and The Constitution) from outside harm. Any one who served can tell you that a soldier is willing to lay down his life for a fellow soldier.

I was being facetious about the dying for you country, just like the joke that you joined to serve your country and protect it and the constitution- because be honest, you didn't- you did it to serve yourself by agreeing to try to kill someone else on orders from your commander, right? you maybe finished high school and had nowhere to go other than flipping burgers at mcdonalds, or you got a college degree in basket weaving or some other field that left you pretty much unqualified for doing anything more than flipping burgers at mcdonalds, except this time you'd have a sheepskin to hang on the wall beside the grill station- so you thought you'd escape the rat race that everyone else has to fight through and go into this gentle, mans world where all your decisions are made for you; a world of men, living with men, sleeping with men, eating, showering, crapping and no women to bother you. Ah yes ! How proud you must have felt when you signed up and got though basic training- but the real secret that you never told anyone is why you really joined. Thats the joke.

Equal rights does not mean equal ability. Especially in the area of physical ability. It's not about push ups or the ability to keep up on a run. It's about a woman being able to assist picking up a wounded 200 lb man and carrying him to safety.
It's also about the male inherent instinct to protect females.
There are differences between men and women that should be kept that way.
The military has reduced standards for physical requirements to allow women to serve. That is a fact.

Gender difference exists and it needs to be addressed properly.

Question: how many soldiers could meet the standard requirements 5 years into the service ? most folk get older get lazier, get comfortable, get fat. gender difference means nothing- not in the age of firearms, neither does age, or health- a 200 pound soldier is too heavy; there are no 200 pound marathon runners, or competitive swimmers or cyclists- you go on about physical ability, but ignore the limitations- what purpose do push-ups serve in combat ? women peak around age 30 and maintain physical strength and ability through to age 50+ while men generally peak around 30 and start to decline thereafter. You are just pulling rules for standard requirements as though it has any relevance to the job- exerting political force through the barrel of a gun, which as we have seen since firearms came into the picture, is childs play. so wheres your gender difference now ? sorry mr delta force ranger commander, your 24hour record pushups meant nothing to the kid who got you with the ak 47

Does a woman have equal rights as a citizen, of course. Do those rights ensure her she can join and serve, of course. But those rights should also be pared with the ability to perform the tasks needed to be part of the team. Put them through the PT and obstacle courses from twenty to thirty years ago and require them to keep up will make them quite equal, if they can complete them.

Equality as you seem think is what turned the French Revolution into a bloody and negative event.

Why do you bring blacks into the discussion for?

boy, my argument went way over your head in that one huh ? I am wondering how Dr Suess might put this for you, Sam; I used as hypothetical ( that means "I made it up for the sake of the argument") statement to construct a rule which I could use to exclude a percentage of people (they be of any other color) for no other reason than the sake of exclusion. The rest of your post is just rubbish as well, and as you seem to be unable to deal with concepts I might as well leave this at that.

Most of your comments seem to come from the "progressive" playbook.
You bring out old canards, such as "flipping burgers is bad, so a young man joins the military to kill people and collect a paycheck."

You talk about getting old and everyone loses strength. That was not the point at all. Most women who have joined the military do not meet the strength and endurance standards of years ago. The military was made to lower standards so that women could pass the physical tests.

You brought up the black issue. Now you want to belittle me over going down your rabbit trail?

Progressives always want others to respect their opinions, while not respecting the opinions of others. This form of making fun of the way a person thinks is part of the progressive agenda.
I may have been foolish to comment on your "rabbit trail" thought. I am spot on that you have an agenda that goes far beyond women serving in the military. That is just a means to an end that you know you want.

Put together a better argument, stop erecting straw men or creating diversions, and quit with the sarcastic comments meant to belittle any poster. I've seen personal attacks before. I will continue to do so. Water off a ducks back as far as I am concerned.

I do not think that your comments went over my head as much as under my feet.

RR

[parusski]

There are a multitude of real problems in allowing women in combat, but consider this :

When soldiers deploy they live together, sleep together, eat together, shower together, and bleed together. So will women be given separate quarters and showers? What if a female platoon leader (in charge of 40 men) becomes pregnant? Will she go home? Will she have to stay in combat? What if she is the only female in the platoon … does she not have to bunk with a man?

The issues of pregnancy are most disturbing, women who become pregnant are allowed to immediately resign. So if we are discussing fairness then women should be forced to stay in the military and carry the baby to full term, even if in combat. If one is appalled by this notion, then the entire argument is built on wet sand.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

ORIGINAL: parusski

But why don't you respond to the ideas that women should play in the NFL, NBA, MLB and NCAA against men? Let's back away from hippies, strawmen and soap operas.

So, Qwixt, since blacks were discriminated against based on perceived(wrongly)social inferiority let's leave that tired argument alone. If you have no problem with women in combat, do you agree that women's restrooms should be open to men?? Should college sororities be open to men joining? Finally, should women's Olympic mountain biking, which has separate men's and women's competions, be integrated?

PLEASE just tell us you support these ideas. If you do, then I applaud your consistency.

Here is my post (#12) from the first page:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

I don't think they belong on the front lines because men and women are not physically equal. They just aren't. I was in a combat MOS in the army, 12B, and the physical lifting requirements were quite demanding. I think most females would have been a weakness.

Our battalion had a 100 mile march context to see which two companies would represent it in an event. It was between 4 companies that sent about 15-20 people each. Two of them were support companies with females, and the other two were combat (like mine) or just sent men. The two with females couldn't even complete the event.

You really need to read better.

I did read and re-read the referenced post. I am still not sure how the post you referred to are a response to my proposals.

So, I try again. Do you support full integration of college and professional sports teams?? Should women's restrooms be open to men? If not, why?

[Qwixt]

I kind of thought this had it covered 100%, "I don't think they belong on the front lines because men and women are not physically equal."

Now given that why would I support integration of sports. I think there are shared restrooms already with nothing but stalls. I've never used one though. I think both genders prefer to keep them separate for obvious reasons.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

I kind of thought this had it covered 100%, "I don't think they belong on the front lines because men and women are not physically equal."

Now given that why would I support integration of sports. I think there are shared restrooms already with nothing but stalls. I've never used one though. I think both genders prefer to keep them separate for obvious reasons.

If one supports allowing women in combat, it follows that all sports should be integrated on the terms of equality. If women can participate in the most violent and destructive activity known to man, then they should be able to play pro-football as a linebacker, or even a half-back.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

I kind of thought this had it covered 100%, "I don't think they belong on the front lines because men and women are not physically equal."

Now given that why would I support integration of sports. I think there are shared restrooms already with nothing but stalls. I've never used one though. I think both genders prefer to keep them separate for obvious reasons.

If one supports allowing women in combat, it follows that all sports should be integrated on the terms of equality. If women can participate in the most violent and destructive activity known to man, then they should be able to play pro-football as a linebacker, or even a half-back.

Is there any law that prevents it?

[barkman44]

Frontline abortions perhaps?the military has its own judicial service does'nt it.
anyway there is a problem with a society that tries to make its men pansies and its women men
[darius's statement at the battle of salamae"My men fight like women and my women fight like men"keeps coming to mind]
Alot of women can't cope with the stress of pms how are they going to handle the stress of actual combat?
really how many REAL men are going to stand by and let a women volunteer for a dangerous assignment while he stays back
thats just not chivalrous so they will take her place and get killed instead because the military has to be pc.
like dirty harry said in the enforcer"thats a hell of a price to pay to be stylish".

ORIGINAL: parusski

There are a multitude of real problems in allowing women in combat, but consider this :

When soldiers deploy they live together, sleep together, eat together, shower together, and bleed together. So will women be given separate quarters and showers? What if a female platoon leader (in charge of 40 men) becomes pregnant? Will she go home? Will she have to stay in combat? What if she is the only female in the platoon … does she not have to bunk with a man?

The issues of pregnancy are most disturbing, women who become pregnant are allowed to immediately resign. So if we are discussing fairness then women should be forced to stay in the military and carry the baby to full term, even if in combat. If one is appalled by this notion, then the entire argument is built on wet sand.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

Frontline abortions perhaps?the military has its own judicial service does'nt it.
anyway there is a problem with a society that tries to make its men pansies and its women men
[darius's statement at the battle of salamae"My men fight like women and my women fight like men"keeps coming to mind]
Alot of women can't cope with the stress of pms how are they going to handle the stress of actual combat?
really how many REAL men are going to stand by and let a women volunteer for a dangerous assignment while he stays back
thats just not chivalrous so they will take her place and get killed instead because the military has to be pc.
like dirty harry said in the enforcer"thats a hell of a price to pay to be stylish".

ORIGINAL: parusski

There are a multitude of real problems in allowing women in combat, but consider this :

When soldiers deploy they live together, sleep together, eat together, shower together, and bleed together. So will women be given separate quarters and showers? What if a female platoon leader (in charge of 40 men) becomes pregnant? Will she go home? Will she have to stay in combat? What if she is the only female in the platoon … does she not have to bunk with a man?

The issues of pregnancy are most disturbing, women who become pregnant are allowed to immediately resign. So if we are discussing fairness then women should be forced to stay in the military and carry the baby to full term, even if in combat. If one is appalled by this notion, then the entire argument is built on wet sand.

Right on the money.

Loved the Eastwood quote.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

I kind of thought this had it covered 100%, "I don't think they belong on the front lines because men and women are not physically equal."

Now given that why would I support integration of sports. I think there are shared restrooms already with nothing but stalls. I've never used one though. I think both genders prefer to keep them separate for obvious reasons.

If one supports allowing women in combat, it follows that all sports should be integrated on the terms of equality. If women can participate in the most violent and destructive activity known to man, then they should be able to play pro-football as a linebacker, or even a half-back.

Is there any law that prevents it?

Prevents what?