aeromotacanucks Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Will it have "Sexist Comment Pilot Onboard" stencilled on the side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I missed the part where we were presenting trial evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 no! Brazilian Pilots are well open minded. but just in case on every flight plan we put this observation:RMK: "Women on her period. request police/air force protection and don´t call them fat" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Okay we get it.. youre against war. I hate to break it to you though, that this isnt what the debate is about. I dont l ike war either. infact i wrote a whole essay on how countries should just turn their "strongest" man into their president and when there is a "war" to be had, we should just have them arm wrestle instead. However there IS war, and there are women who WANT to fight for their rights... let them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeromotacanucks Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oregon Canucky Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 And i am pointing out that MOST women have more brains , empathy and common sense , and do not want to go to war . And what rights are you talking about , as most historians agree apart from WW2 , and the american civil war, all other conflicts were/are only a senseless waste of life for no real purpose except power and/or taking what someone else had by force . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I do not think women should be in combat, but sometimes they are. At the end of the day there will be certain MOS's that women will not be able to do, and certain units that they cannot join. But if women really want to be in combat, then let them. Heck, while they are at it, they should also require all women 17-26 to sign up for Selective Service too if it is about being fair. . But like I said earlier, most of my friends, many who are in the infantry, do not want women in their combat units. To them it is a life and death issue, because a woman is not going to be able to put a full grown man on her back and walk him off of the field--not to mention rucking another one hundred pounds of gear on top of that. However, if she can meet that standard, then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 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...
Tearloch7 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 So, you are saying that instead of being gender blind and picking only the capable (strong, etc) bodied and minded individuals, they will be using this as some sort of affirmative action motion and will be using scrawny 130 lbs women? I'm just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkeeterHansen Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I would fear a 130 pound woman .. if she had an Uzi and refused to smile .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I am talking about their right to fight for their country's "agenda" (as i guess you would discribe it). Im not saying there SHOULD be war. im saying woman should be allowed to fight if THEY deem it a worthy cause... When i say they should be able to fight for their rights. im saying that they should be able to fight on the front lines against any enemy who they perceive as a threat to their freedom. The US as a country feels that we should be ready to stand up for what we believe in and be willing to fight for what is right and good (however it HAS been morphed into some world police-hypocritical puke-like propaganda) Im sure there is SOMETHING you would fight for, even if its nothing youve seen yet... What about nazi's? i would fight them. Hell, maybe one day youll want to go to war over who runs your country... too bad you cant sign up *shrugs* too bad for you... do you see the point here? Im not trying to argue if women should WANT to go to war... im arguing that if they DO want to they should be able to (just like men). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterlingArcher Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 woooohooo! time to renew my wifes life insurance policy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 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...
aeromotacanucks Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 we always say this in Brazilian Aviation when we´re talking about women: "how can you trust in a being that bleeds every month, and doesn´t die?" of course women can do many things, carry many things, actually is very nice see a cute face on tought situations instead of those "monster faces" that men do... but, I´m asking myself, seriously... men don´t have "periods", since men think about pornografy almost everytime there´s no reason to be worried about... BUT will a woman be allowed to fight on her "period"? because if will I´m not sure what side will be safer, you guys saw what happen when your girlfriend is on "that time". a terrorist would be "less crazy" than a woman on her period... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 One place not many women are going to cut it is in the infantry, not so much the fighting aspect but in hauling their gear around. American soldiers travel heavy, some guys are going on patrol with as much as 120 lbs of gear, few women are going to be able to lug that kind of load around for a prolonged period, and most of the ones that do are going to suffer from a lot of short and long term joint and back injuries. It's either that or they go out lighter and quite possibly become a liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oregon Canucky Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 As i have pointed out most historians agree on the fact that there has been "no worthy cause" for any of the wars that have been fought , apart from WW2 ,and the american civil war. Yeah , korea ,vietnam , the gulf war , weapons of mass destruction , i do not call that fighting for "right and good" , and people who think it is , are delusional. No one is going to invade australia , according to "military intelligence", { a term i believe is oymoronic}, indonesia is our biggest threat , and they are no real threat , just like no nation is going to invade the US. My fight is against poverty ,racism and stupidity , and i am aware that i am fighting a losing battle in regards to poverty and stupidity. My father lived through the fire-bombing of coventry , and lied about his age to join the army and fight on the beaches of D-day , where he was severely wounded , but you know who i admire even more than him, one of my mates mum lived in holland during WW2 , her family hid jews in their home for 2 years , if they were caught , everyone was marched outside and shot , imagine living in fear all the time , to me this is an ultimate act of courage and selflessness. And no , i will never want to go to war in my own country against my fellow australians , only a person who is completely braindead would even consider doing this . I treat others the way i expect to be treated myself , man or woman , but i will gladly tell man or woman that they should not go to war , that they should work out there differences in a peaceful manner , using dialogue , not guns . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oregon Canucky Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 As a former serving sapper I would like to add my 2 cents on this but also add 2 things to this discussion. #1 - The home fires. We had the first women come through with us back in early 90's as we where in UNIKOM ( Iraq/Kuwait on conclusion of the first gulf war ). My wife trusted me and I her during our long seperation for the tour but it really bothered her and her fellow military wives she was friends with. Once you leave the safe confides of camp you forgo the luxury of privacy. From showering to changing to doing ones businuess - its where one can - when one can. From a soldiers point of view after long hours in the hot sun and maybe days without a shower - if we could build our own feild shower - no one was thinking about looking at the person showering .... it was your 2 minutes of shower and not one person would trade a second of that time for a glimpse of the person in the next shower. Our luxury crappers where wooden outhouses that sat 5 ... a tiny wooden partion covered the lower body as you sat. Often there was only 1 such available crapper. When you gotta go you gotta go. Women have no problems taking a dump sitting next to men, it was actually the other way around. Men where too bashful to let er rip with women in the can. This again bothered your spouses back home more than it ever did those in the unit. Sleeping in camp was fully seperated. During the time away each week we slept in the back of our trucks - so yes you could be sleeping side by side with a woman. When it was your down time you where only thinking of sleep - there is nothing sexy about 12 soliders ( 4 or more snoring and pissing everyone off ), stinking and tired trying to get some zzz ... A snoring female soldier got dirty socks tossed on their face equally as men ... no discrimination when you keep others awake. Again this bothered the wifes back home more than it did anyone else. In camp or where possible the respect of gender is and I'm sure is still a #1 priority. In camp full privacy was always protected and everything from sleeping quarters to washrooms fully seperated and private. It was the wives that where uncomfortable knowing that far from home in waring country that their men where sleeping - showering and toilting next to other woman day in and day out. The problem this presented was with spouses back home being stressed - stress is always SHARED so you end up with stressed soliders who are distracted by worried spouses. Having any soldier worried about relationships back home or the stress of their partners back home is NOT a good thing - distracted soldiers make mistakes..... What our unit did which many felt really helped was getting all of the spouses back home together socially and connecting them as a support network. For example my wife meeting the husband of a female soldier eased her mind that he too shared the same concerns - it also on some level put them at rest because the impression was knowing that back home "spouses talked and shared letters" meant we would all behave. Truth is it changed nothing in our practise as there was no hanky panky - but the fact that it settle the concerns of spouses back home had a settling effect on us. The above issues where non issues for us but trivilizing them for back home spouses would have been a big mistake. A wife ( or now same sex partner or husband ) back home has the right to be uncomfortable with you being away from home for 6 months being so close to the opposite sex. Ask yourself this ... if your wife at work got naked and jumped into the shower room with male co workers would you be ok with it? Spouses can only use the same comparasion as a civilian as neither group has seen what life in the field is like on a tour for soldiers so both would see it as being uncomfortable - the Military should put equally time in working with soldiers and spouses ... the 2 sides need each other. The other thing they have done or could expand on is having a camera crew follow a unit and tape a day in the life of the unit. Stinking sweaty exhausted soldiers in boxers grabbing a 2 minute shower under a running hose in the middle of the desert seen on film would remove all thoughts of sexy. #2 - Death. Oddly enough my wife told me her group was concerned about us dying to save a female soldier and dying in the arms of a female solider. On the first part she was afraid that if under attack would my instinct to protect women put me in greater harm as I would over protect her and thus be at greater risk of harm. I explained that instict to have your fellow soliders back is there no matter what the gender is ... In the trench so to speak - there is no geder or athiests ... And her second death concern was that if the unspeakable happened that it could be in the arms of a female soldier you pass away and it bothered her to think that it would another woman that last held you. Keep in mind - she and every other spouse has the right to those feelings and its not their job to deal with them - its the armys job to help them over come it. A few of the spouses where RN's and during one of the social get togethers spoke to the group and explained that in WW2 and Korea that a very large number of Canada's dead and wounded where last held or spoken to by female RN's and that nearly 100% of all civilain deaths that occur in Hospital it is also a female RN more often than not that is the last person to hold or speak with them.. My point in sharing the above is that for the most part it is not the actual soldiers that have any problems with females serving. Those female sappers had to pass 100% of the same tests and course as the men and to the same pass standard - FULL STOP.They did not get a free pass. Sure back in camp in a more relaxed enviroment some issues came up but that's always happened and women have always served in support roles.The main people with the problems where not the soliders but everyone else. The public that is not the family of those serving can quite frankly get stuffed if they don't like it - it has nothing to do with them. The concerns of the partners though is very valid and needs to be addressed on their level to help them deal with it. Simply telling a wife or husband that this is year 2013 and to get over it would never be acceptable - they have the right to their fears and in the end the old saying of "a happy wife is a happy life" really applies here ... If the army can help the families to get past the issue of both genders serving side by side and assist them to to be at peace with it ... it will help the soliders serving greatly. The problem for the most part is everyone elses but those serving. And to the posters saying that male soliders have to go on patrol with 120+ lb's of gear and few women could do that - you are 100% correct. But you forgot to add few men can do that as well. Through the same PT testing of all combat soldiers those that can do it - will - those that fail wont. There are men that fail their basic or QL3's as well. None of those men would be on that patrol and now you can say that women who fail the same test will equally be failed. Any women on patrol would have earned that position in the same manner as the man so don't worry. And for the record - every single man who lugs that much gear also suffers from a lot of short and long term joint and back injuries. I sound like a chorus of stomp every time I stand up with all my joints cracking ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oregon Canucky Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 iwtl, I have to admit... this is a pretty realistic and potentially problematic concern... Even though i would like to say "hey its 2013, get over it" to jealous or concerned spouses (as you mentioned), I hadnt really pondered how spouses feelings would actually affect the soldiers performance/safety. Sometimes people are uncomfortable with things and they throw out every possible "but" and "what-if". Most of the concerns seem so shallow and ignorant that it blinds us to the REAL/RATIONAL problems that can be created by changing a policy. All of that being said, I do think this is a problem that CAN be resolved (or at least addressed and minimized). I hope the brilliant minds higher-up think like you do because if they do, we can count on women being a productive part of our combat fighters while minimizing the negative side-effects of political/emotional/social/physical pit falls. I imagine in the beginning this will be a bit of a rough ride, but we as a country, owe this to ourselves. Let us practice what we preach and find reasonable solutions to promote equality and empower EVERYONE. It may be hippy mumbo-jumbo but everyone should have the right to realize their dreams and live up to their potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 As a former serving sapper I would like to add my 2 cents on this but also add 2 things to this discussion. #1 - The home fires. We had the first women come through with us back in early 90's as we where in UNIKOM ( Iraq/Kuwait on conclusion of the first gulf war ). My wife trusted me and I her during our long seperation for the tour but it really bothered her and her fellow military wives she was friends with. Once you leave the safe confides of camp you forgo the luxury of privacy. From showering to changing to doing ones businuess - its where one can - when one can. From a soldiers point of view after long hours in the hot sun and maybe days without a shower - if we could build our own feild shower - no one was thinking about looking at the person showering .... it was your 2 minutes of shower and not one person would trade a second of that time for a glimpse of the person in the next shower. Our luxury crappers where wooden outhouses that sat 5 ... a tiny wooden partion covered the lower body as you sat. Often there was only 1 such available crapper. When you gotta go you gotta go. Women have no problems taking a dump sitting next to men, it was actually the other way around. Men where too bashful to let er rip with women in the can. This again bothered your spouses back home more than it ever did those in the unit. Sleeping in camp was fully seperated. During the time away each week we slept in the back of our trucks - so yes you could be sleeping side by side with a woman. When it was your down time you where only thinking of sleep - there is nothing sexy about 12 soliders ( 4 or more snoring and pissing everyone off ), stinking and tired trying to get some zzz ... A snoring female soldier got dirty socks tossed on their face equally as men ... no discrimination when you keep others awake. Again this bothered the wifes back home more than it did anyone else. In camp or where possible the respect of gender is and I'm sure is still a #1 priority. In camp full privacy was always protected and everything from sleeping quarters to washrooms fully seperated and private. It was the wives that where uncomfortable knowing that far from home in waring country that their men where sleeping - showering and toilting next to other woman day in and day out. The problem this presented was with spouses back home being stressed - stress is always SHARED so you end up with stressed soliders who are distracted by worried spouses. Having any soldier worried about relationships back home or the stress of their partners back home is NOT a good thing - distracted soldiers make mistakes..... What our unit did which many felt really helped was getting all of the spouses back home together socially and connecting them as a support network. For example my wife meeting the husband of a female soldier eased her mind that he too shared the same concerns - it also on some level put them at rest because the impression was knowing that back home "spouses talked and shared letters" meant we would all behave. Truth is it changed nothing in our practise as there was no hanky panky - but the fact that it settle the concerns of spouses back home had a settling effect on us. The above issues where non issues for us but trivilizing them for back home spouses would have been a big mistake. A wife ( or now same sex partner or husband ) back home has the right to be uncomfortable with you being away from home for 6 months being so close to the opposite sex. Ask yourself this ... if your wife at work got naked and jumped into the shower room with male co workers would you be ok with it? Spouses can only use the same comparasion as a civilian as neither group has seen what life in the field is like on a tour for soldiers so both would see it as being uncomfortable - the Military should put equally time in working with soldiers and spouses ... the 2 sides need each other. The other thing they have done or could expand on is having a camera crew follow a unit and tape a day in the life of the unit. Stinking sweaty exhausted soldiers in boxers grabbing a 2 minute shower under a running hose in the middle of the desert seen on film would remove all thoughts of sexy. #2 - Death. Oddly enough my wife told me her group was concerned about us dying to save a female soldier and dying in the arms of a female solider. On the first part she was afraid that if under attack would my instinct to protect women put me in greater harm as I would over protect her and thus be at greater risk of harm. I explained that instict to have your fellow soliders back is there no matter what the gender is ... In the trench so to speak - there is no geder or athiests ... And her second death concern was that if the unspeakable happened that it could be in the arms of a female soldier you pass away and it bothered her to think that it would another woman that last held you. Keep in mind - she and every other spouse has the right to those feelings and its not their job to deal with them - its the armys job to help them over come it. A few of the spouses where RN's and during one of the social get togethers spoke to the group and explained that in WW2 and Korea that a very large number of Canada's dead and wounded where last held or spoken to by female RN's and that nearly 100% of all civilain deaths that occur in Hospital it is also a female RN more often than not that is the last person to hold or speak with them.. My point in sharing the above is that for the most part it is not the actual soldiers that have any problems with females serving. Those female sappers had to pass 100% of the same tests and course as the men and to the same pass standard - FULL STOP.They did not get a free pass. Sure back in camp in a more relaxed enviroment some issues came up but that's always happened and women have always served in support roles.The main people with the problems where not the soliders but everyone else. The public that is not the family of those serving can quite frankly get stuffed if they don't like it - it has nothing to do with them. The concerns of the partners though is very valid and needs to be addressed on their level to help them deal with it. Simply telling a wife or husband that this is year 2013 and to get over it would never be acceptable - they have the right to their fears and in the end the old saying of "a happy wife is a happy life" really applies here ... If the army can help the families to get past the issue of both genders serving side by side and assist them to to be at peace with it ... it will help the soliders serving greatly. The problem for the most part is everyone elses but those serving. And to the posters saying that male soliders have to go on patrol with 120+ lb's of gear and few women could do that - you are 100% correct. But you forgot to add few men can do that as well. Through the same PT testing of all combat soldiers those that can do it - will - those that fail wont. There are men that fail their basic or QL3's as well. None of those men would be on that patrol and now you can say that women who fail the same test will equally be failed. Any women on patrol would have earned that position in the same manner as the man so don't worry. And for the record - every single man who lugs that much gear also suffers from a lot of short and long term joint and back injuries. I sound like a chorus of stomp every time I stand up with all my joints cracking ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.