Do women belong on the front line?

“A *wink* and a smile!!”

Level 8

Since: Apr 10

USA

#86 Dec 7, 2012
Deer Whisperer wrote:
<quoted text>
yep. that's what it's all about !!
Hi and welcome back after the holiday break. Hope all is OK :)
Thank you, it's nice to be back..:)

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#87 Dec 7, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody is saying that women have no place in the military. We are just questioning the notion that men and women are totally interchangeable in combat situations. Like it or not, men and women are different physically and wired differently emotionally. Brain scans show that men and women tend to react very differently to identical stimuli. Men and women are not absolutely interchangeable, period.
You assume so much and read so little.

Nowhere has it been published in this thread that "We are just questioning the notion that men and women are totally interchangeable in combat situations." That would only be your sexist self. Women are historically more intelligent and patient than men - an absolute necessity in combat situations. Today's combat forces don't march into battle. Today's fighting soldier has to be more tech-savy, more cerebral if you will. The psychology of modern warfare is waaaaaaay different than it was even in Vietnam.

Your arguement is invalid.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#88 Dec 7, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>You can spew all the spurious personal attacks you wish. It still doesn't change the fact that you can't face the facts that men must meet more stringent physical standards than women in the Marines. I even provided the links to prove my assertion.
All your links provided was to throw up more red herrings. Women don't play professional football because of obvious size and speed differences. You have provided absolutely no validation to support the arguement of why women shouldn't be on the front line. As I've said earlier - combat situations are becomming less and less physical and more and more cerebral and technical - to which any woman would have the obvious edge over any man.

“I looked, and behold,”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#89 Dec 7, 2012
I don't have a problem so long as the same standards are applied regardless of sex. If I were in a fox hole, sorry, I don't want to be with someone who didn't have to meet the same standards as me, when enlisting. I'm not in favor of risking my life over some PC B.S.

I also think discipline is important and being a man and knowing how men and women are when together, I can see that being problematic when out in the field. I'm sure it happens in the barracks, which is one thing, but when out in the field you don't need to carry that with you ... you have a job to do which is to do your duty and protect your fellow soldiers.

Level 6

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#90 Dec 7, 2012
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you did, and my Vespa does 185 mph.
This is the internet - I doubt you're even a male.
Like it or not, we're all men here. Even Catman.

“I call it as I see it.”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#91 Dec 7, 2012
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume so much and read so little.
Nowhere has it been published in this thread that "We are just questioning the notion that men and women are totally interchangeable in combat situations." That would only be your sexist self. Women are historically more intelligent and patient than men - an absolute necessity in combat situations. Today's combat forces don't march into battle. Today's fighting soldier has to be more tech-savy, more cerebral if you will. The psychology of modern warfare is waaaaaaay different than it was even in Vietnam.
Your arguement is invalid.
It is ironic that a feminazi like you would call me sexist. That is downright laughable. And before you get carried away with your hysterical rants, I only apply the feminazi label to the most radical of the feminists. More and more scientific research is showing radical feminism to be at odds with biological science.

“I call it as I see it.”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#92 Dec 7, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
I don't have a problem so long as the same standards are applied regardless of sex. If I were in a fox hole, sorry, I don't want to be with someone who didn't have to meet the same standards as me, when enlisting. I'm not in favor of risking my life over some PC B.S.
I also think discipline is important and being a man and knowing how men and women are when together, I can see that being problematic when out in the field. I'm sure it happens in the barracks, which is one thing, but when out in the field you don't need to carry that with you ... you have a job to do which is to do your duty and protect your fellow soldiers.
You got that right.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#93 Dec 7, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
I don't have a problem so long as the same standards are applied regardless of sex. If I were in a fox hole, sorry, I don't want to be with someone who didn't have to meet the same standards as me, when enlisting. I'm not in favor of risking my life over some PC B.S.
I also think discipline is important and being a man and knowing how men and women are when together, I can see that being problematic when out in the field. I'm sure it happens in the barracks, which is one thing, but when out in the field you don't need to carry that with you ... you have a job to do which is to do your duty and protect your fellow soldiers.
With an emphasis on standards. Remember, there are currently no standards for this situation. Secondly, most - if not all - of us are used to dealing with the opposite sex on a daily basis in civilian life only. Professional relationships aside, combat situations would be entirely different. I think Bex mentioned it earlier - with the case of woman cops versus male cops - the Tazer knows no size or sex limits - down you go whether it is deployed by a man or a woman. The same can be said for firearms. There are very few if any hand-to-hand situations in combat anymore. It's not the Middle Ages where we mount our soldiers on chargers and trod them into battle. Physically I am well aware of the differences - mentally I'm not so sure men have the edge anymore - which is where modern warefare is headed.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#94 Dec 7, 2012
EraserX wrote:
<quoted text>
Like it or not, we're all men here. Even Catman.
Probably - highy doubtful though - I'd like to see Harrah's odds on the "Catman" thingee.

“I call it as I see it.”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#95 Dec 7, 2012
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
All your links provided was to throw up more red herrings. Women don't play professional football because of obvious size and speed differences. You have provided absolutely no validation to support the arguement of why women shouldn't be on the front line. As I've said earlier - combat situations are becomming less and less physical and more and more cerebral and technical - to which any woman would have the obvious edge over any man.
My links showed just what I said they did and you are admitting now that there are obvious physical differences between men and women. Your responses are so weak and full of BS that they are very easy to defend against. Most women would be a drag and not an asset on the front line on the physical part alone. If women were the physical equal of men, why do they have separate male and female events in the Olympics and why don't the ladies and men have totally gender integrated professional tennis tournaments?

And combat is still not all that cerebral and a genius IQ far from guarantees a good foot soldier. Much of infantry requires slit second reactions as there is usually very little time to carefully evaluate a situation when one is being shot at. In my time in service, I saw absolutely no evidence that women were superior thinkers in combat exercises anyway.

“I call it as I see it.”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#96 Dec 7, 2012
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably - highy doubtful though - I'd like to see Harrah's odds on the "Catman" thingee.
You are really getting desperate when to have to stoop to those depths with your posting.

“Got'em figured out?”

Since: Nov 09

Think again

#97 Dec 7, 2012
Not thinking outside the traditional combat box is not getting it:

How likely is hand-to-hand, toe-to-toe combat in our modern armed forces?

Reiterating from previous post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat

****In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered.******
Hoosier Hillbilly

Oxford, OH

#98 Dec 7, 2012
His wife took it away from him...

“Beauty is in the eyes ....”

Level 7

Since: Feb 11

..... of the "beer holder"

#99 Dec 7, 2012
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
With an emphasis on standards. Remember, there are currently no standards for this situation. Secondly, most - if not all - of us are used to dealing with the opposite sex on a daily basis in civilian life only. Professional relationships aside, combat situations would be entirely different. I think Bex mentioned it earlier - with the case of woman cops versus male cops - the Tazer knows no size or sex limits - down you go whether it is deployed by a man or a woman. The same can be said for firearms. There are very few if any hand-to-hand situations in combat anymore. It's not the Middle Ages where we mount our soldiers on chargers and trod them into battle. Physically I am well aware of the differences - mentally I'm not so sure men have the edge anymore - which is where modern warefare is headed.
I see many of your points and like I said, I think I'm a tad old fashion.
I wonder why the cop didn't use her tazer? Maybe her mind set, or threat of a law suit, who knows. I just think men are better suited for what has to be done in situations of war and quicker to take action. I know I would hesitate, and you would colour me dead.
You my friend, are the perfect example of a man's man. I could never imitate you. Go get 'em tiger!
<lol>

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#100 Dec 7, 2012
HangUpAndDrive wrote:
<quoted text>
If we give them enough stuff, I bet they could hit 80 homers a year.
Requiring medication is a burden. On the front lines, that's a big issue for either gender. Don't ignore it.
If you have a job for 20 good people with a good probability that some won't come home, do yourself a favor and send in the 20 best people you have to get the job done so that they can all come home.
You make the grade - you're on the team.
Your comment made me laugh. Believe it or not I grew up across the street from Barry Bonds, I used to pin him on the lawn and make him scream uncle when we were kids. You are right I probably couldn't have done it in high school which is when males mature and closer to the age they would be enlisted.

Depo-Provera I will agree has side effects and is administered under a doctors care every 12 weeks.

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#101 Dec 7, 2012
Deer Whisperer wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor would I.
However [and thanks for self-replying to the deleted post], you're reasoning is spot on in that post.
Israel comes to mind. I vaguely remember something about at least another country having women in combat units; can't remember if it was regular military or paramilitary.
Women can be trained killers with weaponery too.
when my kids were in shooting classes the instructors would tell the boys, don't be mad BUT girls are generally better at shooting, they had more patience then the boys.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#102 Dec 7, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>My links showed just what I said they did and you are admitting now that there are obvious physical differences between men and women. Your responses are so weak and full of BS that they are very easy to defend against. Most women would be a drag and not an asset on the front line on the physical part alone. If women were the physical equal of men, why do they have separate male and female events in the Olympics and why don't the ladies and men have totally gender integrated professional tennis tournaments?
And combat is still not all that cerebral and a genius IQ far from guarantees a good foot soldier. Much of infantry requires slit second reactions as there is usually very little time to carefully evaluate a situation when one is being shot at. In my time in service, I saw absolutely no evidence that women were superior thinkers in combat exercises anyway.
You're like chasing a herd of cats.

Here's a link that supports my arguement that women are closing the intelligence gap with men (even exceeding men):

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/07/16...

"The physical and psychological weakness argument receives opposition from an article published in the Army Times July 29, 1996, that stated that in practice, some women do possess the necessary physical attributes to becoming elite combat soldiers. It is further argued that the extent to which the fighting attributes required for effective combat performance is underestimated. Even in men, these attributes are not inherent but rather enhanced through TRAINING. Thus, some of the purported physical weakness in women can be overcome through TRAINING, challenging the long-term impact of gender stereotypes both in the military and other civilian professions inherited from the past. On the other hand, the cases of guerilla combat and the recruitment of women in the Soviet armies show that in extreme scenarios, women are and have success. Furthermore, by dismissing the Culture and Tradition argument where women were only deployed in supportive functions, one needs to have the big picture in mind. In the general ‘business’ world, employment opportunities for women are increasing as well as considerations for equality rights (Moskos, Williams., & Segal, 1999).

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#103 Dec 7, 2012
I don't know why they would even want to be. I know I wouldn't want to..

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#104 Dec 7, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Trying to outwit mother nature can have some serious medical consequences in the future. If a female soldier takes such medication and develops serious gynecological problems as a result, who is going to pay for treating it? The taxpayers?
http://womensenews.org/story/medicine/060823/...
I didn't say it was free of complications I simply said we can stop it.

“I call it as I see it.”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#105 Dec 7, 2012
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
With an emphasis on standards. Remember, there are currently no standards for this situation. Secondly, most - if not all - of us are used to dealing with the opposite sex on a daily basis in civilian life only. Professional relationships aside, combat situations would be entirely different. I think Bex mentioned it earlier - with the case of woman cops versus male cops - the Tazer knows no size or sex limits - down you go whether it is deployed by a man or a woman. The same can be said for firearms. There are very few if any hand-to-hand situations in combat anymore. It's not the Middle Ages where we mount our soldiers on chargers and trod them into battle. Physically I am well aware of the differences - mentally I'm not so sure men have the edge anymore - which is where modern warefare is headed.
Not everything about combat can be put in a test tube so one must used sime common sense once in a while. There are still situations where a foot soldier must make a run for it and the average man can cover the same distance in sigificantly less time than the average woman, not to mention that a typical man can run further without needing to stop to catch his breath. Waiting for a woman to catch up could have fatal consequences. All I can say is that if women want to serve on the front lines, they should be required to meet the exact same standards as men including the ability to cover a certain distance in full field gear in a certain length of time.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
#Things You DON'T Want To Hear# 4 min greymouser 49
Play "end of the word" (Nov '08) 1 hr -Papa-Smurf- 26,856
Play "end of the name"... (Jun '15) 1 hr -Papa-Smurf- 2,909
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 1 hr -Papa-Smurf- 49,885
Word Association (Mar '10) 1 hr -Papa-Smurf- 22,560
News On the Road: What's that weird green space in R... 1 hr Ted Haggard s Mas... 3
2words into 2new words (May '12) 1 hr -Papa-Smurf- 8,628
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr wichita-rick 223,264
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 4 hr Crazy Jae 27,176
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 4 hr Crazy Jae 9,426
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 4 hr Crazy Jae 6,017
Phrases that you don't hear very often (Nov '11) 5 hr Princess Hey 710
More from around the web