About Should Women Be In The Military? Page 5
| || |
|View Poll Results :Should Women Be In The Military?|
|Not On The Field||52||23.42%|
|As Nurse, Yes||16||7.21%|
|Let Them Have A Go||16||7.21%|
|Sure, Why not?||56||25.23%|
|Yeah, We Need More Women As Leaders||30||13.51%|
|Voters: 222. You may not vote on this poll|
| || |
|January 25th, 2004||#41|
| || |
And for being helped Redneck, Lol, I am traingin in the firman's training room, and they have told me showed me how to do it.
You should see those firemen!!
I promise you, it pays off playing blonde sometimes.
|March 16th, 2004||#42|
| || |
I disagree that a man would feel more sensitive about a female casualty than a male. I have had the misfortune to be in combat as an infantryman more times than I care to remember. If you think that you wouldn't feel "quite as bad" if someone is killed or wounded rather than someone else, then you are mistaken. In the heat of battle who is who becomes quickly blurred. It is a very strange feeling to try to describe. When people are trying their best to kill you and when you are trying your best to survive, you become oddly focused on the task at hand. You do things you may never had thought you would or could. It's feels like your worst nightmare multiplied by 100 and you can't wake up from it. The time for worrying about what happend to whom comes after the battle.
As far as women in combat, I wish nobody would ever again have to experience combat but that's just a wish. I wish I could see a world where my daughters and granddaughters would never be allowed to be in combat. Now if you're asking if I think they could do the job then I'd definately say yes. I have seen women in combat, I have fought against women in cobat. I'm here to tell you, they can fight there is no doubt about that. If you think they can't carry their weight, forgive me if I laugh. Check your history books gents. Just look at what the Russian women did defending their country. Look at what the Vietnamese did as well. The days of hand to hand combat with strong soldiers wielding heavy swords is long gone. That's just my opinion.
|March 16th, 2004||#43|
| || |
Now I have to think about what to write, because for once I don't know how to give a good reply to yours, DTop.
All I can say that I am both suprised and impressed by your reply to this matter.
I think I droppped my jaw a bit as well, though, I will think a little more about what you wrote..
But you really caught my attention now..
I wish I could find words to say right now, but everything is empty.
Maybe that explains more then I think..
|March 16th, 2004||#44|
| || |
It seems some are getting caught up in the PC argument. The military, where lives are at stake, is not the place for social experimentation.
Let's look at the most obvious issue. There are physiological differences that limit women in the critical area of physical ruggedness. Even if there are some women who can do it, the military still has no obligation to rework the whole logistics chain to accomodate them.
No matter how much you want to argue, men and women are different. Check relative cardiac capacity, erythrocyte counts, muscle-mass-to-body-mass.
1) The male on average has a larger heart than that of the average female. Therefore, is able to pump more blood into the muscles for longer rates of endurance.
2) The average male has a 25% larger lung capacity than that of the average female. Therefore, the male has the ablility to pump more O2 into the body giving males more endurance also. For example, go to any neonatology unit in any hospital and ask a Dr. what type of prematures babies have the best chance of living, and they will say that females do, because the females do not have as large as lungs as that of the males, therefore, thier lungs can develop quicker than the males.
3)3. Body weight, the average males has over 25 lbs on the averagae female. Therefore, providing the male with greater advantage in almost all situations.
4) Hips, on average women have wider hips than males making their center of gravtity lower to the ground and causing them to have more of a sway from side to side when they run. Therefore, making running that much harder on females than on males.
5) Upper body strength, if a women and a male were to stand side by side and both were to put there arms straight out, the males arms would be a straight line, whereas, the females arm would form an "X" like shape. Try this with your wife or girlfriend, females arms bend-in at the elbow whereas a mans does not. This gives the male more leverage and more upper body strength in areas such as pull-ups and push-ups.
There are several more areas that I could go into, such as body fat percentages, muscle mass ratio's, red blood cells, white blood cells, smaller bones, etc. but I think I have made my point.
Now, understand .. I am not against women in the military. While I've never been assigned to any units that allow females, I have worked with, and in some cases against, them in many enviroments under many circumstances. What I am against is women serving in combat arms MOSs. For those of you that support allowing women in combat arms, I pose these questions.
Could you address the dynamics of small units and the manner in which they would be affected by the introduction of females?
Can a unit benefit by their [females] addition?
Are these units handicapped by their absense?
|March 17th, 2004||#45|
| || |
Rendersafe, some very fine points. In a perfect world, if, and only if, a female had to meet the exact same standards as a male, and if those standards were not lowered to accomodate women, then I would be all for women in all branches. This, however, is NOT a perfect world, and the standards would (HAVE) decline. Mission performance is the only issue that matters here.
Another matter is group cohesiveness. Females and males do not relate to members of the opposite sex in the same ways they relate to members of the same sex. A group of males has a tighter cohesiveness and less distractions than a group of males and females. Having been in all male units and mixed units, I believe the all male units to be more aggressive, more focused, and more efficient. Also, sexual harassment claims don't seem quite so prevalent in all male units
Again MISSION PERFORMANCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS, and I believe it suffers from the inclusion of women. Sorry ladies, nothing personal.
|March 17th, 2004||#46|
| || |
No, I know it's nothing personal at all and I can see your points.
But there are other things women are better in then men are.
And I hope you guys don't forget that.
Though, Shall defending your country be some contest of who is best in running and stuff like that?
Shouldn't a woman who is determinated to fight for her country sees as a less fighter because of her "weaknesses"?
Where did then the pride of the military fighting for the country go?
I can't see any pride in joining a force wich doesn't value the people who want to fight for the country.
Because when someone is urgent and at least want to be a help for the military in war they can't?
I think we are missing out on a lot of people then.
So, if this would be like you guys want to, and no woman CAN join the army of one reasons to another.
Should women then have to go against every law to stand and fight like you guys?
Should we have to buy our own weapons and equipment to fight for our country?
Somewhere in all this I believe it's kind of confusing.. I don't know how your armies work. But Sweden values those who wants to fight, and those who fights give everything to help their country.
But maybe the Military over at other places isn't seeing it as a good thing?
I don't know.. All I know that even though I maybe won't as good in battle as a man, but I damn know that I will be as smart in battle as a man.
Well, and the frontline they can let me die, I don't really care about that part. Because if I in some way would be a problem for my buddies, then they can let me do what I am born to do.
Defending my country.
Sounds fair? I think so.
|March 24th, 2004||#47|
| || |
Well, not in combat roles. I just dont think it's for women. Now, a few reasons-
1. Women are not built for it. If they were, it would have been done like that long ago...
2. As redleg noted, it will distract the men from their jobs(oh, and women are allowed to some fighting roles in the IDF)
3. If a women is capture dand raped, then what?
4. some Jobs in the field take alot of time to train for. After spending all that time and money on her, a woman might get pregnant and be unactive for a long time.
5. Infrustructure- this will aquire facilities for women in all bases. If we dont need the women their, should we spend the money just to make sure they get their chance? I mean, if a regular soldier required his own bathrooms, barracks and all, would the army do that just to give him a chance?
Women are great at being instructors. The IDF found that having a woman as a tank or sniper teacher, causes the men to try harder(they wont loose to a girl, plus they want to impress her...)
Let women help where they are most needed!
|March 25th, 2004||#48|
| || |
I think it's amusing that females are clamoring for all of the "benefits" denied to them by their sex, but there is no group called "Women for the Right to Be Required to Sign Up With Selective Service."
|March 25th, 2004||#49|
| || |
You would be surprised at the general view on that. Most seem to think it's only fair they be required to register. The big issue with that is if they are going to be drafted, then they should be eligible for combat jobs as it would be a necessity to fill them in the first place. Civilians have no concept of "Needs of the service." Honestly, I think requiring them to register would be a bad decision. Just one step away from having them in combat arms.