Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Women In the Infantry

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Women In the Infantry Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/26/2015 6:46:56 PM   
waltero


Posts: 210
Joined: 1/24/2008
From: Alaska
Status: offline
Looks like most of the people oppose to "women in the infantry" are (or have been) in the military themselves. It is a different world. Allowing women into the Infantry is not going to be an end all!
Throughout history, women warriors have fought and led troops into battle

Opinions are irrelevant...Women will join the ranks. If we lose the next war- we can blame it on the woman.



< Message edited by waltero -- 12/26/2015 7:49:48 PM >

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 421
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/26/2015 6:47:04 PM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3155
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline
NO don't stop it....I want to see if I can make 2016.

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 422
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/26/2015 8:06:19 PM   
Kuokkanen

 

Posts: 2683
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: waltero

Throughout history, women warriors have fought and led troops into battle

Noble & royal women have been known to do the leading part. If I understand it correctly, most of them have done that only becouse they haven't had male relatives to do so instead. But did Artemisia or Elizabeth or anyone take part to the fighting too?

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to waltero)
Post #: 423
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/26/2015 9:18:43 PM   
operating


Posts: 2303
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Again, someone who does not know what their talking about. There's nothing wrong with these men. If you think for minute, every Soldier, sailor, Marine or Air Man went to War believing it was only a rich man's war. Again Sir!! what Division did you serve in...as Infantry Man. Please post it here. Other wise, Your just another PC warrior, who doesn't have a clue.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

I am really reluctant to post here; however, I cannot stop myself. There is something really wrong with many of you. Who cares if women can serve in combat roles? Women have been serving in that capacity since the beginning of time. In modernity we saw it in the Soviet Union during the Second World War, where women served with the Soviet armed forces with distinction. There were no problems with discipline, and Soviet society did not collapse. In fact, the Soviets actually won that war, remember?

Furthermore, women have been in combat roles for years in the armies of many nations. I don't hear anyone saying anything about women seriously degrading the IDF.

Finally I don't want to live n your world where there is some assumed natural distinction between genders. I don't care if my 18 year daughter has to face selective service. In fact, I feel the same way about it as my son. I don't want to lose either of them in a rich mans war.

What I do want is a world in which my daughter is acknowledged as a human being, who isn't limited by her gender. One in which people rightly assume that she can do, and should be allowed to do, anything she puts her mind to.

A lot of you are living in a twisted version of the past, the memory of which we cannot hurry out of living memory fast enough.




Ditto!!!

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 424
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/26/2015 9:29:55 PM   
operating


Posts: 2303
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Ah, the "new" left, where fiction is knowledge.

Not that new, that word is for the new dopes, still fiction, keep repeating though, always plenty of new fools.


There is tranquility in your words and yet so true

(in reply to charlie0311)
Post #: 425
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 2:22:22 AM   
parusski


Posts: 5169
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Jackson Tn
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Time to shut this one down guys... please...




It should be shut down if people start with nasty, personal insults.

Most of us have had very civil discussions on the issue. One of the many things I like about you Rhonda is you are able to voice your opinion and then defend it in a polite way. You and I do not agree on the issue of this thread, but we never got hateful with each other.

Take care.


_____________________________

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 426
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 2:49:07 AM   
zakblood


Posts: 17492
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

Calm it down with the interpersonal attacks or the thread will need to be locked.

Cheers

Pip


Admin reads all and tbh have already commented on it being shut down if personal insults again start to happen, so i guess this will happen as reported post, some seem to never learn

(in reply to PipFromSlitherine)
Post #: 427
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 2:52:47 AM   
rhondabrwn


Posts: 2582
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great


quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

If you want to make a post in favor of woman in the infantry, you're more than welcome to do so.

That still doesn't make either that or this topic allowed, per the "no politics" rules, and it's just as germane either way to point that out.

And considering the topic is all the way back from 2013, thread necromancy is also at play here.


Never said I favored woman in the infantry, in fact I don't.

Never said the topic shouldn't be allowed, it's fine with me to have a reasonable, valid and proper discussion on the topic.

Why I agree with Rhonda is that some of the posts cross the line becoming insulting, sexual and beyond what falls into reasonable, valid and proper argument. That is what ruins the thread. It may become just one more locked thread because a few posters cross the line that takes away the ability of the others to have a thoughtful, reasonable, valid and perfectly proper discussion and difference of opinion for the rest.


Exactly!

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics :(

(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 428
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 4:42:23 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
Whether you agree with it or not, it's going to happen, so why bother with it? This is why I've stayed out of the discussion until now.

_____________________________


(in reply to waltero)
Post #: 429
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 5:29:00 AM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1255
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Whether you agree with it or not, it's going to happen, so why bother with it? This is why I've stayed out of the discussion until now.


The answer would be because it is not an academic or political or social discussion in the end. It is about the lives of infantry soldiers and the combat effectiveness of infantry formations. We in the US are going to conduct a social experiment that might get soldiers killed and might lose battles when our national security is at stake. And we will be doing it indeed because the political leadership has decided it will be done for political and social reasons. It is easy to say it is the right thing to do. But if it gets one man or women killed, will it be worth it?

My view is that we should field the most effective fighting force possible. I believe putting women in infantry squads will degrade the combat effectiveness of those squads and will in combat get people killed. In part that will happen because standards will be lowered, whether officially or, with a wink and a nod, unofficially, to meet the political goal. In part it will be because there is an obvious dynamic between men and women that can't be wished or ordered away that will affect soldiers in infantry squads.

Can women fight? Certainly. Can they do most military jobs as well as men? Certainly. But I think there is a place at the tip of the bayonet where they will be detrimental to combat effectiveness. And I don't think that makes me sexist or backwards or misogynistic to believe that. I am simply trying to be a realist. John Kennedy said our destinies are sometimes focused on the small point of a bayonet. When it really matters, that bayonet point better be sharp. I don't think it will be as sharp in the future.

We will probably muddle through, though, because we will probably not face a major conflict with our backs again the wall, but small conflicts where problems with the experiment can be covered up, just as other problems are covered up. Our government is very good at lying. But like you said, it will happen whether it is a good idea or not.

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 430
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 7:36:08 AM   
waltero


Posts: 210
Joined: 1/24/2008
From: Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltero

Throughout history, women warriors have fought and led troops into battle

Noble & royal women have been known to do the leading part. If I understand it correctly, most of them have done that only becouse they haven't had male relatives to do so instead. But did Artemisia or Elizabeth or anyone take part to the fighting too?


History is full of women warriors, women armies...Some fierce warriors!
If you search you will find.

It is here! you might as well except it. Fact of the matter is- you don't know.
What we do know; Israel, which on paper has one of the most gender-neutral militaries in the world.
Israeli news media claims integrating women into combat roles had been a success.
Nobody wants to **ck with Israel.

Give women a chance to prove their worth. Let us see if the positive outweighs the negative regarding women in the infantry.



(in reply to Kuokkanen)
Post #: 431
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 1:04:30 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1043
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: waltero

Looks like most of the people oppose to "women in the infantry" are (or have been) in the military themselves. It is a different world. Allowing women into the Infantry is not going to be an end all!
Throughout history, women warriors have fought and led troops into battle

Opinions are irrelevant...Women will join the ranks. If we lose the next war- we can blame it on the woman.




Just a simple clarification.
I'm not opposed to women in the military. Heck they've been involved for centuries.
My opposition is in the area of infantry fighters and women having "reduced" standards to take their gender into account, instead of allowing women who only pass the infantry fighter standard that men do to be allowed the privilege of becoming an infantry fighter.

The job is not infantry fighter/men and/or infantry fighter/women. The job is simply infantry fighter and should have one standard for both.
Like a puzzle, the combat team must be made of pieces that fit together. Not pieces of puzzle from different puzzle boxes.

And, because of that I would not want to lose any future war or the lives of our infantry fighters if it can be avoided by not injecting double standards to meet someones PC needs (to make them feel good).

How many must die to provide an "experiment's playing field"? Sorry, that is just repeating mistakes of the past. The lives of our infantry fighters are too precious to play the game of social engineering with?

RR

< Message edited by MrRoadrunner -- 12/27/2015 2:08:34 PM >


_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to waltero)
Post #: 432
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 1:18:19 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 905
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
Man, this PC thing, equalizing whatnot and whatever has gone way too far. I mean if we are discussing women serving in infantry why is most of the discussion about reduced standards? About what women can't and can do? It's really simple in the end: if the woman can serve to the standard that is required from frontline infantry then they need to be able to serve if they want to. Otherwise you are treating women with the opposite idiotic standard as those who would reduce standards for women so they can all serve in infantry. If women serving in infantry automatically means to you that your GOVERNMENT and ARMY will reduce the performance requirements then the issue is not with women, it's with your god damn country.

And I mean it's frontline infantry, cannon fodder. Come war they'll take take any man, woman, boy, dog, or tree stump that will fit the casualty reduced standards...but that's another discussion.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 433
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 2:38:57 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1255
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: offline
Well, I have to go back to something I asked earlier. How many women will be playing in the NFL games (American pro football) today? How many will be playing in NBA games? How many in the Premier League this week? Why is that? Sexism? Are men preventing qualified and talented women from playing these elite professional sports? Or do you think that if a woman could perform at the elite professional level that professional teams would sign her in a heartbeat for the publicity? And there would be a huge drumbeat from the media to see that woman play. But there aren't any. Only a small group of men can play at that elite level. Now imagine a decree that the NFL will have to accept and play female players....

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 434
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 2:47:20 PM   
waltero


Posts: 210
Joined: 1/24/2008
From: Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JW

Well, I have to go back to something I asked earlier. How many women will be playing in the NFL games (American pro football) today? How many will be playing in NBA games? How many in the Premier League this week? Why is that? Sexism? Are men preventing qualified and talented women from playing these elite professional sports? Or do you think that if a woman could perform at the elite professional level that professional teams would sign her in a heartbeat for the publicity? And there would be a huge drumbeat from the media to see that woman play. But there aren't any. Only a small group of men can play at that elite level. Now imagine a decree that the NFL will have to accept and play female players....


Irrelevant

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 435
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 2:49:37 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1255
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Man, this PC thing, equalizing whatnot and whatever has gone way too far. I mean if we are discussing women serving in infantry why is most of the discussion about reduced standards? About what women can't and can do? It's really simple in the end: if the woman can serve to the standard that is required from frontline infantry then they need to be able to serve if they want to. Otherwise you are treating women with the opposite idiotic standard as those who would reduce standards for women so they can all serve in infantry. If women serving in infantry automatically means to you that your GOVERNMENT and ARMY will reduce the performance requirements then the issue is not with women, it's with your god damn country.

And I mean it's frontline infantry, cannon fodder. Come war they'll take take any man, woman, boy, dog, or tree stump that will fit the casualty reduced standards...but that's another discussion.


And you have hit on a major point. In America this is a social and political issue that has nothing to do with military readiness. Those pushing for women in all combat roles are not concerned about readiness and effectiveness. They have a belief -- a belief -- that women and the equivalent of men in all ways and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary, even extensive tests regarding the effectiveness of women in combat infantry squads. It also affects other areas of life. Here is a good example:

"A New York firefighter who did not pass her physical tests was injured just 10 days into her job."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/fdny-firefighter-injured-10-days-job

This is a legitimate concern.

As for your last point, there is a different between a nation fighting for its very survival -- The Soviet Union in WWII, Israel today -- and a nation like the US and Western European nations that are not fighting for survival and needing every breathing person they can push into the front lines. We are talking about highly skilled combat forces where we have the ability to find the most elite personnel and field the best possible infantry teams and squads.

But as said earlier, we will conduct this experiment in the US. And I honestly hope I am wrong, that standards will be upheld and that those women who meet the minimum standards will not lower the effectiveness of combat units, since it is going to happen.

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 436
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 3:10:58 PM   
waltero


Posts: 210
Joined: 1/24/2008
From: Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JW


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Man, this PC thing, equalizing whatnot and whatever has gone way too far. I mean if we are discussing women serving in infantry why is most of the discussion about reduced standards? About what women can't and can do? It's really simple in the end: if the woman can serve to the standard that is required from frontline infantry then they need to be able to serve if they want to. Otherwise you are treating women with the opposite idiotic standard as those who would reduce standards for women so they can all serve in infantry. If women serving in infantry automatically means to you that your GOVERNMENT and ARMY will reduce the performance requirements then the issue is not with women, it's with your god damn country.

And I mean it's frontline infantry, cannon fodder. Come war they'll take take any man, woman, boy, dog, or tree stump that will fit the casualty reduced standards...but that's another discussion.


And you have hit on a major point. In America this is a social and political issue that has nothing to do with military readiness. Those pushing for women in all combat roles are not concerned about readiness and effectiveness. They have a belief -- a belief -- that women and the equivalent of men in all ways and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary, even extensive tests regarding the effectiveness of women in combat infantry squads. It also affects other areas of life. Here is a good example:

"A New York firefighter who did not pass her physical tests was injured just 10 days into her job."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/fdny-firefighter-injured-10-days-job

This is a legitimate concern.

As for your last point, there is a different between a nation fighting for its very survival -- The Soviet Union in WWII, Israel today -- and a nation like the US and Western European nations that are not fighting for survival and needing every breathing person they can push into the front lines. We are talking about highly skilled combat forces where we have the ability to find the most elite personnel and field the best possible infantry teams and squads.

But as said earlier, we will conduct this experiment in the US. And I honestly hope I am wrong, that standards will be upheld and that those women who meet the minimum standards will not lower the effectiveness of combat units, since it is going to happen.


It might be a good idea integrating women into the "infantry" before there comes a real need for it.
Better to be ahead of the ball game. We might think about integrating midgets too

if they can make it work eh, why not...send in the midget monks!

I have never been a fan of women in the military, but if it works, all the more power to them.
I hated taking orders from them...unless it was in the bedroom.

< Message edited by waltero -- 12/27/2015 4:20:35 PM >

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 437
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 4:33:57 PM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1658
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
Since this is a political decision (not a constitutional or legislative one), it can be changed with a new administration. The President is the Commander in Chief. This 'experiment' will likely only last another <13 months.

_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to waltero)
Post #: 438
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/27/2015 7:27:17 PM   
Zap


Posts: 3108
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: waltero

quote:

ORIGINAL: JW


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Man, this PC thing, equalizing whatnot and whatever has gone way too far. I mean if we are discussing women serving in infantry why is most of the discussion about reduced standards? About what women can't and can do? It's really simple in the end: if the woman can serve to the standard that is required from frontline infantry then they need to be able to serve if they want to. Otherwise you are treating women with the opposite idiotic standard as those who would reduce standards for women so they can all serve in infantry. If women serving in infantry automatically means to you that your GOVERNMENT and ARMY will reduce the performance requirements then the issue is not with women, it's with your god damn country.

And I mean it's frontline infantry, cannon fodder. Come war they'll take take any man, woman, boy, dog, or tree stump that will fit the casualty reduced standards...but that's another discussion.


And you have hit on a major point. In America this is a social and political issue that has nothing to do with military readiness. Those pushing for women in all combat roles are not concerned about readiness and effectiveness. They have a belief -- a belief -- that women and the equivalent of men in all ways and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary, even extensive tests regarding the effectiveness of women in combat infantry squads. It also affects other areas of life. Here is a good example:

"A New York firefighter who did not pass her physical tests was injured just 10 days into her job."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/fdny-firefighter-injured-10-days-job

This is a legitimate concern.

As for your last point, there is a different between a nation fighting for its very survival -- The Soviet Union in WWII, Israel today -- and a nation like the US and Western European nations that are not fighting for survival and needing every breathing person they can push into the front lines. We are talking about highly skilled combat forces where we have the ability to find the most elite personnel and field the best possible infantry teams and squads.

But as said earlier, we will conduct this experiment in the US. And I honestly hope I am wrong, that standards will be upheld and that those women who meet the minimum standards will not lower the effectiveness of combat units, since it is going to happen.


It might be a good idea integrating women into the "infantry" before there comes a real need for it.
Better to be ahead of the ball game. We might think about integrating midgets too

if they can make it work eh, why not...!send in the midget monks

I have never been a fan of women in the military, but if it works, all the more power to them.
I hated taking orders from them...unless it was in the bedroom.


Forward thinking person? I guess still allows for politically incorrect thinking. Little people (not midgets)would be offended by your statement and adding monks into the mix? Priests are acceptable fodder for liberals as well.

< Message edited by Zap -- 12/27/2015 9:14:19 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to waltero)
Post #: 439
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/28/2015 1:33:20 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 933
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Since this is a political decision (not a constitutional or legislative one), it can be changed with a new administration. The President is the Commander in Chief. This 'experiment' will likely only last another <13 months.

In a way, this speaks to how change is not a constant plodding inevitability, as the acceptance of women into combat roles (actual implementation guidelines aside) was enabled by the current administration and may well have not happened had a different Commander-in-Chief / Defense Secretary been at the helm.

Speaking to the specifics of "13 months from now" though, it's unlikely that the next President would be of a different party, and therefore unlikely that the next President would reverse course in this matter.

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 440
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/28/2015 3:29:13 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1658
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
I cant respond the way I would like to, but lets say I very strongly disagree with you on the outcome...and that the policy will most definitely change. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this.

I'm not sure if we can talk gambling on this site (forgive me if I violate that rule)...but I have a friend in London that has placed a couple bets for me: 1,000 pound bet at 9-1 odds that Trump wins, and a 1,000 pound bet at 11-1 odds that Cruz wins. What I don't get is how highly Marco Rubio is rated...for some reason odds makers in London think he's got a great chance...and I may have been a bit late for my bet on Cruz.


< Message edited by Jagdtiger14 -- 12/28/2015 5:27:36 AM >


_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 441
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/28/2015 10:10:14 PM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3155
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline
Come on guys back on subject...No...Politics...Please. Women in the Infantry...Pro's and Con's, that is all.

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 442
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/29/2015 12:53:38 AM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1255
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: waltero


quote:

ORIGINAL: JW

Well, I have to go back to something I asked earlier. How many women will be playing in the NFL games (American pro football) today? How many will be playing in NBA games? How many in the Premier League this week? Why is that? Sexism? Are men preventing qualified and talented women from playing these elite professional sports? Or do you think that if a woman could perform at the elite professional level that professional teams would sign her in a heartbeat for the publicity? And there would be a huge drumbeat from the media to see that woman play. But there aren't any. Only a small group of men can play at that elite level. Now imagine a decree that the NFL will have to accept and play female players....


Irrelevant



Relevant. If there are no gender distinctions or differences between men and women, as has been claimed and defended here, then shouldn't we be seeing women in growing numbers playing "men's" professional sports at the highest levels, or even at lower levels? We don't even have women playing football or basketball or baseball at the lowest collegiate levels of American sport, with a very few exceptions, and usually in specialty positions like kickers.



< Message edited by JW -- 12/29/2015 2:05:41 AM >

(in reply to waltero)
Post #: 443
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/29/2015 12:55:10 AM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1255
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: offline
Interesting story on US Marine Corps study on use of women in other military forces, including the vaunted amazons of the IDF.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/24/marine-corps-study-finds-few-women-in-combat-in-ot/

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 444
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/29/2015 2:50:10 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 933
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JW
Relevant. If there are no gender distinctions or differences between men and women, as has been claimed and defended here, then shouldn't we be seeing women in growing numbers playing "men's" professional sports at the highest levels, or even at lower levels? We don't even have women playing football or basketball or baseball at the lowest collegiate levels of American sport, with a very few exceptions, and usually in specialty positions like kickers.

Because that would require end-to-end institutional support, as in if you want women to be playing professional baseball, there'd have to be a structure going down to as early as women little league games for the players to filter up through to the rest of the system.

Not only is there a lack of such, it is quite likely that that would have significant opposition, from these same circles, for these same reasons.

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 445
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/29/2015 3:45:49 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3805
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JW

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltero


quote:

ORIGINAL: JW

Well, I have to go back to something I asked earlier. How many women will be playing in the NFL games (American pro football) today? How many will be playing in NBA games? How many in the Premier League this week? Why is that? Sexism? Are men preventing qualified and talented women from playing these elite professional sports? Or do you think that if a woman could perform at the elite professional level that professional teams would sign her in a heartbeat for the publicity? And there would be a huge drumbeat from the media to see that woman play. But there aren't any. Only a small group of men can play at that elite level. Now imagine a decree that the NFL will have to accept and play female players....


Irrelevant



Relevant. If there are no gender distinctions or differences between men and women, as has been claimed and defended here, then shouldn't we be seeing women in growing numbers playing "men's" professional sports at the highest levels, or even at lower levels? We don't even have women playing football or basketball or baseball at the lowest collegiate levels of American sport, with a very few exceptions, and usually in specialty positions like kickers.




Not relevant. Oh, by the way, http://www.wnba.com/

How many infantrymen weight 290-320lbs, which is the average weight of NFL linemen?


< Message edited by Aurelian -- 12/29/2015 4:52:41 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 446
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/29/2015 3:51:40 AM   
Kuokkanen

 

Posts: 2683
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Finally I don't want to live n your world where there is some assumed natural distinction between genders.g memory fast enough.

In that case, can you explain why militaries around the world have lower physical fitness standards for women than for men?

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 447
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/29/2015 2:09:04 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1043
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
It's really simple in the end: if the woman can serve to the standard that is required from frontline infantry then they need to be able to serve if they want to. Otherwise you are treating women with the opposite idiotic standard as those who would reduce standards for women so they can all serve in infantry. If women serving in infantry automatically means to you that your GOVERNMENT and ARMY will reduce the performance requirements then the issue is not with women, it's with your god damn country.

And I mean it's frontline infantry, cannon fodder. Come war they'll take take any man, woman, boy, dog, or tree stump that will fit the casualty reduced standards...but that's another discussion.


LOL! Karri, you need not be so "hot" about the topic.
I do not approach this from a stance of "feelings" about it.

And, I am glad to see that we agree. One standard for both? Then it is an even playing field with those "who can" being able to do the job.

As far as your cannon fodder statement? You might look at the article that JW linked in the post below #444?

Am glad that we could probably have this discussion in a pub where the other patrons won't think we are trying to kill each other!



RR

_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 448
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/29/2015 6:24:13 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1255
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: JW

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltero


quote:

ORIGINAL: JW

Well, I have to go back to something I asked earlier. How many women will be playing in the NFL games (American pro football) today? How many will be playing in NBA games? How many in the Premier League this week? Why is that? Sexism? Are men preventing qualified and talented women from playing these elite professional sports? Or do you think that if a woman could perform at the elite professional level that professional teams would sign her in a heartbeat for the publicity? And there would be a huge drumbeat from the media to see that woman play. But there aren't any. Only a small group of men can play at that elite level. Now imagine a decree that the NFL will have to accept and play female players....


Irrelevant



Relevant. If there are no gender distinctions or differences between men and women, as has been claimed and defended here, then shouldn't we be seeing women in growing numbers playing "men's" professional sports at the highest levels, or even at lower levels? We don't even have women playing football or basketball or baseball at the lowest collegiate levels of American sport, with a very few exceptions, and usually in specialty positions like kickers.




Not relevant. Oh, by the way, http://www.wnba.com/

How many infantrymen weight 290-320lbs, which is the average weight of NFL linemen?



Relevant. Question - Why is there a WNBA? Is it so women can have a league of their own because they cannot compete at the elite level with men? And just how good are the women of the WNBA, the elite female basketball players in comparison to men? Could they beat a good men's college team? An average men's college team? A good high school team? During my Army career I was quite a gym rat and not a bad basketball player, though certainly not college material. I was good enough to not embarrass myself as a role player in the #1 pickup games in the gyms. But I did play a lot against guys who had played in college (I remember one colonel from West Point who had a deadly jumper from the corner.) and women who had played in college in mixed gender pickup games. The women always had great ball skills -- better than mine -- but they were, relatively speaking, compared to the guys, slow and weak. That is not meant to insult them. It was just a fact. You don't want to see the WNBA champions go up against the worst NBA team, or even a good college men's team.

But let's look at a couple of sports where in the US there is a good support system for both boys and girls from a young age, and where physical size and height are less important, baseball and soccer. The support system with youth programs is there from age four or so. Women capable of competing with the boys do, but then at puberty things start changing, and fewer and fewer girls compete with the boys. By the time you get to good high school level (age 15-18) sports, you see virtually no girls competing with the boys. I teach at a large high school. I also take pictures at games. The difference between high school boys soccer and girls soccer is dramatic. Girls who five years earlier competed on basically an equal footing with the guys can no longer do it. The physiology prevents it. They are not as fast and strong. They might be just as technically talented, but they can't compete on the same field, with the exception of a few very elite female athletes who can compete at a marginal level with not quite elite guys. And then by the time we get past high school to college, they physical differences are so great that no women can compete at an elite level in baseball or soccer with men.

Let's look at track and field. I ran track in high school. I was pretty good. But nothing great. My best 400 meter times were between 50 and 51. I never won a big high school meet with those times. But that sets me up well, if I were 18 again, to compete well against the best female track and field athletes in the world. The winning times in the 2015 world championships for women were in the 49s. I would have been right there with them, a step or two behind. And I never really seriously trained, meaning I trained, but only what my coaches had me do. I did not train like an elite athlete. You could take the women's world champions and take them to a good high school track meet, and they would be hard pressed to win most events, because the elite female track athletes are running and jumping at a good high school male athlete pace.

Granted, during my Army career I knew many women who could blow me away on a 5k or 10k run. I was always rather mediocre at anything beyond 400 meters anyway. But put 70 pounds worth of field gear on us, and their advantage in a PT run went away.

There is a physiological barrier that is a real "natural distinction between genders" that simply exists and cannot be wished away. And I think that barrier is exemplified in the fact that women are unable to compete at an elite level in men's athletics in virtually any sport that requires more than primarily technical skill.

And we haven't even talked about the many studies that show injuries among women in highly physical jobs and sports occur at a higher percentage than injuries for men doing the same things.

And I believe that has great relevance in this discussion, since were are talking about the physical abilities needed to be an infantryman.

What we will get in our American experiment is some women who can meet the physical requirements at a marginal level. Will that be good for our combat readiness when they are called upon to perform as infantrymne?

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 449
RE: Women In the Infantry - 12/30/2015 1:22:48 AM   
waltero


Posts: 210
Joined: 1/24/2008
From: Alaska
Status: offline
Are we pitting Females against Elite 'American Men' (military)?
I remember reading about twelve monks that held off an entire army for 7+ days.
Pit women against the monks...not a chance, pit them against that same army...who ya!
I mean what are we talking; North Korea, China...our Women can kick the sh*t outa them.
How many 150-250 pound Asians do you run into...Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
marginal level is all that is needed.

Sometimes simple sheer numbers of participants allow for an expectable battlefield outcome.
Wars ultimately come from man power and, from this, the portion of the population that is actually able to assist in the war effort (able-bodied souls for fighting).









< Message edited by waltero -- 12/30/2015 2:55:12 AM >

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Women In the Infantry Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.297