Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jan 15, 2011.
Since female Soldiers are already directly experiencing combat, this only makes sense.
But what about their ... you know... menstration?
I never understood why women couldn't be foot soldiers if they really want to. I have pretty much the same view of women in the military as gays in the military. I don't see "sexual tensions" threatening the safety of the country. But if it is that big of deal, why can't their be male and female units or something?
As long as anyone can do the job, I don't care about their gender, color, whatever.
But while they're at it, they need to require women to sign up for Selective Service as well.
I'm all for equal rights in employment, but I think the general concern is that women are on average naturally smaller and physically weaker than men. Seeing and hearing about the insane physical toll that two tours of Afghanistan took on my former recon marine buddy, I think suitable candidates would be hard to come by. Now, assuming it's based on merit, fine, but few things are these days.
I have no issue with it as long as the physical requirements for men and women remain the same.
Yes I know the physical part is not exactly fair but at the same time I would not want to put others at risk just because some people strength and what not was not up to the what is required in combat. It kind of a tough cookies for women on that part.
This argument has no basis. The military trains, sees how candidates preform, and are then cast. Maybe more women end up in kitchens, hospitals, and as computer technicians, that doesn't mean they all have to.
I have worked in the past with a young lady who actually saw active combat. I found my own prejudice when at first I was really stunned to hear she knew about guns, especially the M4A1, which is one of the more prominent primary long gun of the US Armed Forces. If you are curious the M4A1 is the most recent evolution of the AR-15 which people constantly call the M16 but the M16 is simply a military term for AR-15. AR-15 is ArmaLight Model 15 (Armalite is the original creator of the AR-15, which rights to produce were then bought by Colt in the early 60s. Today, at least 10 larger companies make the AR-15 at a production level for both recreational shooters and military usage around the world.) The AR-15 is one of the most produced of all of the 'Black Guns' (don't call them 'assault rifles' as not all are and don't call them 'assault weapons' as that shows intent to use it as a murder weapon) and probably the most popular gun in its caliber of 5.56x45mm (AKA .223 or 556 NATO). It is available in single shot mode (semiautomatic) to civilians only; ones produced today are only up to a 3-round burst auto fire where as the fully automatic ones are slightly older and are less popular for in true 'battle' usage as they do not have all the modern advancements of current models.
Anyway, after learning that this girl saw and participated in active combat and had witnesses the atrocities of war, I was well, speechless. I realized I was utterly unprepared to find this out and I got kind of angry at myself for my reaction.
The physical strength and capability aspect is something from the times past guys; most war is fought with technology these days
Oh and BTW, you Europeans are the ones that make the good guns and most of YOUR armed forces have much better 'tools of the trade' than us Americans...where the hell all that money goes we spend I sometimes wonder.
You could not be more wrong for soliders on the ground.
Remember they have to carry all their equipment with them. The total weight has not changed in since WW. All that as changed is the amount of stuff they can carry has increased due to weight of the objects being reduced. But the lb they carry gear wise is still about the same.
They still have to be able to run march and move on foot just as long as they have since WWI.
They have better tools but the physical requirements has not changed because they still have to be able to do the same physical stuff for the good of the unit and to survive. A unit can only move as fast as their slowest person.
That's the risk their enemies have to deal with.
PMS for the win.
And who the Hell says that women can't shoot as well, or better, than men??
Certainly not Annie Oakley.
I have no doubt that this is the case. I have cousins in the military and I wouldn't be able to carry their equipment a foot.
On the other hand, not every man can meet those physical requirements either. At least in this instance women would be on equal footing if that was an area they wanted to concentrate in, and they demonstrated the fitness that is required.
The physical stature/endurance argument does not hold water...some ethnicities (certain Asian groups are a good example) are noticeably smaller in stature than Euro-Americans, on average. Yet they make excellent soldiers.
Women are generally smaller and less muscular than men, but they are still large enough and strong enough for military duty. This has been proven on numerous occasions in the past. The Soviet Union used female combat soldiers in WWII, and there is no indication that they were anything less than effective. The Viet Cong employed women in combat roles, as did the communist Chinese.
Women can fight.
Exactly not even all men can meet the requirement. Big time for special forces and my view is men and women in combat should have the exact same physical requirement.
I do not think people are arguing that they can not fight. But we are saying that they should have to meet the exact same requirements the men have to. For lack of a better term making them weaker for women.
In ethnicities some ethnicities even in the army just are going to be a much smaller number in combat areas because they do not meet the physical requirements as often.
I read somewhere their periods attract bears. Bears can smell the menstruation.
I agree...and can't imagine that they wouldn't have the same requirements. I know a few women who are FDNY, and they had to meet the same requirements as men (talk about heavy gear). So I don't see why the military would be any different.
For infantry, yes, but you know what I mean. However, look at how much of armed forces is around technology. You need advanced degrees for some positions, years of training, political endorsements, etc. There are many people who have to coordinate those people on the ground to help them succeed and stay alive. Yes, some positions do require physical capability but my point is that many positions exist which don't; I did not mean to imply all.
I would argue the physical beating of the current situation is worse than WWII due to the extremely hot temperature, which almost no one is prepared to wear armor (which if you ever worn it is sooo hot and itchy) for extended periods of time in that type of heat. It destroys the body and if you don't stay well hydrated, it will kill you very quickly. The only climate more dangerous is the extremely cold ones in which you freeze to death in.
I'd be inclined to agree, but I'm opposed to the bar-lowering that often accompanies an aggressive push for equality when faced with a large discrepancy in ability. Women were up in arms at the FDNY with this kind of complaint last year: http://gothamist.com/2010/02/20/women_firefighters_say_fdny_discrimi.php
This site is absurd and bad, but there are some figures that are pretty hard to argue with: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html
Either way, faced with a large-scale ground war, the final calculation that would have to be made would have to take into regard the preservation of the society we're fighting for...which presents an argument against letting women fight: a population's continued success depends more on having enough females than enough males.
but guess what most of those spots you are talking about are not front line combat spots. Minus pilots who fly in to hostile areas which do need that physical training and requirements in case they go down.
As for physical the only area hot wise is Iraq. Afiganistan is quite cold in the mountains so not a good argument.
The weight limit that solders have to carry has not changed since WWI and WWII. We are physical limited to how much weight we can put on the human body. Stuff get lighter but means you can pill on more stuff.
Also your entire point on the physical requirements has nothing to do with the point I was making.
What is considered combat seems to vary.
I was referring to Iraq as far as heat. We are both smart people and obviously both know of the climate variation.
And the point I am making has a lot to do with your post as I was attempting to agree with your argument as you want the best qualified people which for infantry need strength and endurance and I agree. Women generally have less muscle mass than men. I talked about technology to point out that since women do have anatomical differences than men that may give cause to not participate in front line infantry, the varying specialization allows them to still participate.
I don't think it should be a right for women to serve in combat as much as it should be a requirement. Why shouldn't they have to do the same duties as men?
You would use that to your advantage: if the other guys are a misogynistic type culture, dip your bullets in it and make sure they know you are doing it.
-the Sambia believe that semen, male sexual fluid, is all important to human life, is in short supply, and must therefore be circulated through people, through both males and females, very carefully.
-Semen is male essence of course;
-A female's sexual essence is her menstrual blood which is very scary to men it along with vaginal secretions and lubricants during sex are the stuff of elaborate prohibitions and avoidances for men