theminister Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Not to sound sexist or anything, but would a woman be more reluctant to shoot an enemy combatant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Actually, military studies have shown that armies have a very hard time getting anyone to shoot at the enemy. It's sounds shocking but it's true. In Gwynne Dyer's book, War, he outlines that studies began in the later part of the 21st century showed only a small percentage of combatants, dating from the US Civil war through the Vietnam War, would actually aim for the enemy. Most would fire high on purpose, feign firing at all or would spend most of their time looking for cover. If those studies are true then I don't think that sex would affect the basic human desire not to kill, even when your life is threatened. If anything, I would guess that women may be more vicious in that regard than men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Considering those were the last wars with drafts, It make sense. Most of them are just kids who were forced to serve. They didn't really want to kill anyone. Now that the front lines is composed of entirely of people who signed up I doubt there would be as much reluctance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 My friends in the Army, who are seasoned combat veterans, are against this. Their response is straighforward. "I do not want them there. It is a matter of life or death. If I am hit or injured, a 5'6" 150lb woman is not strong enough to carry me off the field." That woman's story is interesting. She states in her interview on Fox News that because of the intensity of training, she lost muscle mass, strength, and coordination to a degree where she was a liability in the field and could not continue with the training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I have always thought women had far more common sense than to want pick up a gun and go and kill someone in the name of their country . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 That's absolute garbage. I know guys in the army who weigh that amount at about that height. I've also seen insanely jacked women working at fire departments. Something like 70 man-pushups in a minute. But yes, it's my anecdotal evidence against yours. The argument your friend is making, however, is garbage. There are plenty of 5'6, 150 lb men fighting with him on the front line. Women are going to perform at the same level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam13371337 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 besides political correctness, what practical purpose would women in combat serve? this seriously could actually put lives at stake. Even in basic training, womens standards are far lower then men. combat training, and especially special forces training is far tougher. Those requirements are so extreme, there is only a tiny percentage of the absolute top men who can meet them. i seriously doubt There is a single female on earth that could pass a special forces training course (forget hollywood). which gets to the whole lowering standards regiment. . When you consider the frequency that you have to pull a wounded comrade away from a burning tank/ vehicle or danger. a soldier in full combat gear can weigh up to 300 pounds. just take a look at the average size of a woman, and the average size of a female soldier. And ask yourself honestly, what percentage of them could pull a wounded soldier in full combat gear to safety? Very very few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 besides political correctness, what practical purpose would women in combat serve? this seriously could actually put lives at stake. Even in basic training, womens standards are far lower then men. combat training, and especially special forces training is far tougher. Those requirements are so extreme, there is only a tiny percentage of the absolute top men who can meet them. i seriously doubt There is a single female on earth that could pass a special forces training course (forget hollywood). which gets to the whole lowering standards regiment. . When you consider the frequency that you have to pull a wounded comrade away from a burning tank/ vehicle or danger. a soldier in full combat gear can weigh up to 300 pounds. just take a look at the average size of a woman, and the average size of a female soldier. And ask yourself honestly, what percentage of them could pull a wounded soldier in full combat gear to safety? Very very few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 besides political correctness, what practical purpose would women in combat serve? this seriously could actually put lives at stake. Even in basic training, womens standards are far lower then men. combat training, and especially special forces training is far tougher. Those requirements are so extreme, there is only a tiny percentage of the absolute top men who can meet them. i seriously doubt There is a single female on earth that could pass a special forces training course (forget hollywood). which gets to the whole lowering standards regiment. . When you consider the frequency that you have to pull a wounded comrade away from a burning tank/ vehicle or danger. a soldier in full combat gear can weigh up to 300 pounds. just take a look at the average size of a woman, and the average size of a female soldier. And ask yourself honestly, what percentage of them could pull a wounded soldier in full combat gear to safety? Very very few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 besides political correctness, what practical purpose would women in combat serve? this seriously could actually put lives at stake. Even in basic training, womens standards are far lower then men. combat training, and especially special forces training is far tougher. Those requirements are so extreme, there is only a tiny percentage of the absolute top men who can meet them. i seriously doubt There is a single female on earth that could pass a special forces training course (forget hollywood). which gets to the whole lowering standards regiment. . When you consider the frequency that you have to pull a wounded comrade away from a burning tank/ vehicle or danger. a soldier in full combat gear can weigh up to 300 pounds. just take a look at the average size of a woman, and the average size of a female soldier. And ask yourself honestly, what percentage of them could pull a wounded soldier in full combat gear to safety? Very very few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Uniform standards for training and selection, boom, I have absolutely no problem with this. Short of the biological differences in levels of aggression due to hormones and such, if a woman is strong enough, fast enough, and able to make the field decisions that a man can, I don't see any reason why a woman can't serve her country with honour as much as a man can. Again, uniform standards, no exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam13371337 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Besides kill enemy soldiers? You make it sound like it's never happened before. http://en.wikipedia....ila_Pavlichenko I don't think anyone's saying reduce the tough physical requirement each military job would require. No reason someone that is qualified and willing to do the job should be banned based on gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam13371337 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 The 1950's are calling you home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Some of you folks need to meet my ex-wife .. Irish temper, a crack shot AND the ability to hold a grudge for decades .. I would rather fight a man than a woman .. men are easily distracted .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 This same issue arose with the RCMP when it was mandated that female constables would not be restricted to desk jobs anymore and would be working out in the field. The good ol' boys club were outraged, the male culture belief being that women did not have any place being out on the front lines...they were a liability.......yet here they are, in 2013, working on those front lines out on the street. I see the same comments being made about women in combat as I see (saw) still being made about women in the RCMP then. About size, ability to do the job, inability to meet physical requirements etc. It IS a sexism issue when it has been shown and proven, time and time again, that women are capable of doing the job and yet, it's the men who have traditionally held this role having &^%$ conniptions about it. Are they really THAT threatened? You really think women will be allowed on the field of combat if they haven't been qualified to do so? It would be funny if it weren't so darned sad. Are your egos really so fragile? ("Your" applying to some, not all, men/boys) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam13371337 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 This same issue arose with the RCMP when it was mandated that female constables would not be restricted to desk jobs anymore and would be working out in the field. The good ol' boys club were outraged, the male culture belief being that women did not have any place being out on the front lines...yet here they are, in 2013, working on those front lines out on the street. I see the same comments being made about women in combat as I see (saw) still being made about women in the RCMP then. About size, ability to do the job, inability to meet physical requirements etc. It IS a sexism issue when it has been shown and proven, time and time again, that women are capable of doing the job and yet, it's the men who have traditionally held this role having &^%$ conniptions about it. Are they really THAT threatened? You really think women will be allowed on the field of combat if they haven't been qualified to do so? It would be funny if it weren't so darned sad. Are your egos really so fragile? ("Your" applying to some, not all, men/boys) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Great! Now I would like to see all the PRO-WAR women back up their talk with ACTION! If they won't, then shut the hell up and go bake a cake or something! Same goes for all the chickenhawk men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 who said anything about anyone being threatened?? the only personally that comes across looking threatened is you to be honest. you seem to think the slightest highliting of facts about the differences in women and men equals some sort of grotesque macho sexism...... that is not the case. Nobdody (at least not me) is trying to do that. With that being said, your point of comparing RCMP police officers to combat soldiers shows that you may not be fully informed about the issues. The mental/physical stresses a police officer goes through is FAR different then what a Combat soldier faces .they do not even compare. A combat soldier faces daily marches/patrols in extreme weathers, wearing around a 100pounds of gear, and possibly being away from base for many days while actively seeking out very dangerous enemy combatants.. you cant seriously tell me thats in the everyday job description of the RCMP? (and no, seeing combat is far different then being a combat soldier. Seeing combat is being attached to a company that comes under attack. You may or not shoot back(look at jessica lynch). Combat troops actively search for and eliminate enemy combatants.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam13371337 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 This one ^^^ does get a face palm. The good ol' boys club attitude and sexism prevalent in both the military, the RCMP and a certain segment of the male population are right on target (which is what was being compared), but thanks anyway. If a fully qualified woman takes on a combat role knowing what the downside can be, then she is perfectly within her rights to choose that role and who is anyone to tell her she is incapable or can't when the mandate is on her side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 As it stands BASIC TRAINING standards are heavily gender based. the womens standard is far easier. (im not trying to be sexist by saying this so please relax. im just pointing out a fact. ) Based on that, How can it be realistic that the far tougher combat standards would remain the same, yet enough women make it in that it would justifity all the logistical/practical hurdles of incorporating them? somethings got to give. there is no argueing your point on a human rights basis. it is very reasonable to say a qualified woman should serve if she wants to. but that is your opinion and your entiteled to it. My opinion is, that the military is a no-nonesense place where people die. its a matter of maximizing your potential to minimize your losses.. bringing in women who got in through lower standards, and kicking out a more qualified person (as thats what enevitably will happen, (there are a finite number of jobs)). does not serve that purpose and its not just your own life, if you cant pull your weight as a real soldier you will get others killed. personally speaking, i still believe common sense, and military needs should always be put above everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.