Originally Posted by DefiantCdr

Another point that I though was very valid is the fact that female bodies are built differently then male bodies, and there's a very good reason for this. The way it has always been explained to me, is that thousands of years ago when humans were much more primitive, the women would care for the children and the men would protect the family group. If a predator were to come into the camp, the men would defend it while the women would carry as many children to safety as they could. It only makes sense that men would be better suited to hand- to- hand combat, because their bodies were designed that way. I don't think that the issue here is women's rights, I think it is about doing what is best for the military, and the country as a whole.

Even if that would be the problem, I mean, women being "weaker" then mean.. But isn't the army about honor and love for your own country? If a women doesn't qualify to carry this and that much.. But she can still be of value and I believ that the more soldiers a country has the more defence it can provide. So why not use the women for something else and let the ones who do qualify go to the field?

Trust me that the ones who has been knowing me on this military forum doesn't really recognise me for patriotism and supporting military. But I guess I can change my side for once..

..As I see it, being a soldier is both a job and a dedication to serve the country you live in. I am aware that some choose this as profession and I respect that so don't take me wrong here. If I was to join up in the swedish military, I wouldn't do it for just the sake of it. I would see it as my duty to protect my fellow friends that do live in this country. To protect my own children and family as well but the most important thing is; I do it for my country. Since when has the prooud part of being a military been about who can do it and not? I at least believe it's about serving your country and defending it with every little piece of yourself that you got. The only thing I'm against is letting kids have weapons.. (Poor ones.. )

But I do not see a difference in the patriotic ways of a women or a man. I believe it's the same. I am also aware that not all does even qualify for the military. But the ones who do fit the standards should be able to achieve everything they can. Even if it would mean that a woman would be out in the field. Some speak about dying for your country on the field, I do not see the difference in that if the bullet would lie within a man's heart or a woman's heart.

I do am aware of how different we women are in or shape and build. But it's 2006 and most countries has the military that they need. So why not take one single step forward and expand the military even more? We are not always as innocent as we look and we do not only give birth to your children and cook dinner. We can provide with alot more then that. But when will we be given the chance when others close the door to be out there, to fight, to defend?

Originally Posted by SilverPhoenix

I'm gonna be straight with you, but are you saying that men can keep theyir head straight in war but not during a body exam? I mean, c'mon, there is male gynecologists and I don't seem them having a hard on when they exam a woman. So the soldiers out there can't handle their interest in women but can handle a rifle? I found ait a bit funny.

That's exactly right! The same goes for women. We don't hire choir boys to carry rifles and shoot people in the face, you know? I'm not an OBG/YN and neither are those Rangers or SEALs I mentioned.

Things are definitely different when you're hurt or in a combat situation and you have to treat a female patient. Your only concern is saving her life. But that's not training and that's not living in a often times close environment.

But I do see your point, but I don't think the example was really a good reason.

It's just one of many, that's all.

Besides women who wants to join the military forces should be allowed to have their own restrooms, showers... etc.

They do in the rear, but in combat arms you don't always get a shower or a bathroom. Sometimes you take a river or stream and it isn't smart to go off by yourself so you everything in groups. It's hard to make someone understand what life in combat arms is like that hasn't done it. I'm not trying to slight you as you did me but if you look over the posts you'll notice that the guys against it are the guys that know the life and they aren't harping on "women aren't good enough." They are just telling it like it is.

I believe it's time to throw the sexist view.. (Say what you want but it is sexist).. aside.

But it isn't sexist, it's realistic. Calling someone sexist or their opinions sexist is really more of a cop out. It's a way of saying "well, what you say doesn't matter because you're just against women." I'm not against women at all. I love 'em. I didn't say anything sexist, everything I said is true.

I believe that if a woman can pull of as many push ups as a guy then she should be allowed to at least be given the chance. Combat or not, it doesn't matter.

Have you guys seen the SAS program where a women signed up to try to be a soldier for SAS? If she almost qualified for SAS then I believe she would have been suited into the army. It's just you army guys that can't control your testorone and when a woman enters the picture at a military level she is being somehow "the problem" between the guys.

Well, I'm not in the Army I'm in the Air Force and I will tell you the problem isn't just with men. When men and women are put together you can bet that eventually two will get together and play pattycake. Facts of life. When you work hard, you play hard.

Women aren't a problem in and of themselves. But women are women and men are men. And there are some times and places where they don't need to be pushed together.

If a woman can be a police officer and get shot during her duty then it's no one who goes yellign within the police force that women should not be allowed on the streets. But as soon as the discuission about having a woman in the field pops up then alot of military men goes like: NO!!

I find this somehow interesting, because I can not see the difference really. The only difference would be that she had breasts and another gender. (I am going from the point where they both has passed the SAME exams and tests as any other in the military.)

Being a cop is a lot different than being in the military.

Push ups are only about 1% of a requirement. There are a lot more physical aspects to the job. Not recognizing the differences between men and women physically, philologically, mentally, socially and behaviorally is ignoring facts. Passing the physical test is only a small percentage of it. You also have to be able to fit in and work as a team. Unit cohesion plays a huge role.

Women are different than men and that's a great thing in my opinion.

Silver Phoenix,
You make a LOT of valid points, and if you joined your military I'm sure you would be a beacon of success for women. However, the problem (as you have alluded), is not with women, but with men. It's true, that (most) men cannot bear the sight of seeing women (their peers or civilians) being blown apart, something to do with our subconscious desire to protect women. This is shown in the late 1940s when Israel put women on the front line, and unit cohesiveness went to zero when they saw the first women casualties.

Also, about men not handling themselves in tight quarters with women, that is partly true. There are some sickos, whackos, and crazies in every facet of society, and the military is no exception. I've seen my fair share of degenerate, sexist pricks in the Army, and I've just avoided them. For women, it's not that easy. Politically, the government covers its own ass by preventing potential incidents, but fails to address the issue: some men are downright pigs. Not all, but some. But now, the issue has to be addressed since women are seeing so much combat on the modern battlefield, where there are no front lines.

Originally Posted by Maytime

Also, about men not handling themselves in tight quarters with women, that is partly true. There are some sickos, whackos, and crazies in every facet of society, and the military is no exception. I've seen my fair share of degenerate, sexist pricks in the Army, and I've just avoided them. For women, it's not that easy. Politically, the government covers its own ass by preventing potential incindents, but fails to address the issue: some men are downright pigs. Not all, but some. But now, the issue has to be addressed since women are seeing so much combat on the modern battlefield, where there are no front lines.

It's easy to blame sexual acts resulting from mixed gender units on "whackos" and "sickos" It's even easier to blame a lack of bonding between men and women on sexism. But it isn't true. The 10% rule applies everywhere, and this is why you have men that rape women and why you have women that make false alligations against men. But, responsibility for 98% of or problems in mixed gender units lie on TWO people, that'd be the guy and the girl.

In the US military, women have seen combat for some time now. Being in combat and living the lifestyle of combat arms are two different things. I personally believe anyone with fortitude and training can make it in a combat situation but it takes a lot more to make it in a combat oriented job. Females are kicking ass and taking names over in Iraq. They aren't in combat arms positions and I doubt anyone could get away with trying to tell them they aren't getting to serve their country by not being. These jobs are considerably less physical than combat arms and generally afford a better lifestyle when deployed. (See: women get a bathroom and at least semi-private showers).

You're totally right PJ. It does take two to tango, but I think the problem is not with either gender as a whole, but with the system. The higher-ups are protecting their interests by avoiding possible situations, not because they're intentionally sexist, but they like their jobs .

Originally Posted by Maytime

You're totally right PJ. It does take two to tango, but I think the problem is not with either gender as a whole, but with the system. The higher-ups are protecting their interests by avoiding possible situations, not because they're intentionally sexist, but they like their jobs .

Well, there is certainly more to it than just being sexist there are practical, logical and realistic arguments against shuffling women into combat arms just for the sake of doing it. BUT and a big but, you brought up a really good point. A lot of our general gender problems in the military especially withour mixed gender units ARE a product of the system.

Sensitivity training. A knee jerk reaction to complaints of sexual harassment, to protect the women from predatory men and protect the men from false alligations. In other words "walk on eggshells." This doesn't really stop those 10% asshats, but it does alinate the women even more so as the men are forced to be on their toes whenever a female is present.

So for our mixed gender problems, you've got the 10% guys that can't shut up and keep his hands to himself when he doesn't have permission and you've got the 10% women that cry "harassment" for no reason. It makes every one edgy.

Great point to bring up, May!

SilverPhoenix,

I admit I haven't looked at your profile, but are you not in the US? There are a lot of really great opportunities for women in the US military. One of the most high speed jobs we have is EOD, the bomb guys, and women are allowed in that. In the Navy version, they get not only the EOD school, but airborne, HALO, Dive and advanced tactics training. They won't be attached to Special Operations units like the guys, but they get to do some really cool stuff. We also have "combat" Military Police/Security Forces, Counter-Intel, Human-Intel, women can be helicopter pilots, fighter jet pilots or cargo pilots. There are a lot of really great opportunities for women in the US military and to be honest, I don't really hear of a lot of women here complaining that there are not, I think because of that. Do you not have those same opportunities in your military?

SilverPhoenix, you and I seem to be pretty much on the same page on the matter. So long as the women in question are held up to the exactly the same standards as the men, then I see no reason they cannot be deployed into combat or whatever you like. Pass the same tests and you should have the same choices. Run the mile/miles in the same amount of reuired time, same number of required pullups, pushups and every other physical requirement would have to be passed and passed equally.

Currently, women enlisted in the Armed Forces are not held up to the same standards as men. The same is true of women Firefighters, women Police Officers, and countless other occupations. The problem is that, in order to offer "equal rights" those professions will purposely set the bar lower than they do for men. The term for it is "gender norming" and the idea is to compensate for the underlying fact that women are, on average, significantly weaker than men. In my opinion, if we do away with all that, and level the playing field for enlisted women, then she will have already proven herself to be at least as strong and physically capable as any of the men are required to be. Women capable of living up to those standards will be very few and far between.

I think that one thing that inflences me is that one of my ancestors was either a brother or cousin of Deborah Sampson. Deborah Sampson posed as a man, and became a hero in the Revolutionary War. She was critically wounded at some point and the doctor that worked on her discovered her secret. She was discharged from the Army shortly thereafter, but it is an excellent case to go on: Deborah not only did as well as any of the men, but was outstanding and better than most.

I do believe that separate units would have to be created for one simple reason: The average elisted man has the following problem: Young, dumb and full of ***. <- (Sorry in advance mods, just using a common saying.) OBGYN's are not 19 years old with raging hormones, and if they do happen to be 19, they've obviously got alot of added brainpower with which to control themselves. The problem is, in fact, more the men. Having girls around as opposed to not having them around is a huge unnecessary distraction. They've done a number of studies on this sort of thing. I remember seeing the results of one that demonstrated that being in the same classrooms and schools with girls lowered the average scores and grades of the boys. The impact upon the girls scores was not significant. No I don't have a source for it, its just something I'm remembering.

To make it easier I will reply to all of you in the same post.

I did not mean that the females should have abathroom around 24/7 for I do believe that they can go and take a bath in a river with the men when in combat. I don't think that the men will really be bothered, but what do I know? As far as I see it, I've shared showers with men that I do only work with and as far as I can see they handle it pretty good. I would like to call that being a proffesional and not some ... guy seeing me as a ..piece of meat? I did not mean to saw you down PJ24, but I just wanted to point out some other facts.

No, I'm not from the states and as my flag indicate I'm from Sweden and right now Sweden are making commercials on tv to recruit females into the arm. Wow, I'm so impressed by my own country... not. I do want females in the army so don't get me wrong. But Sweden is being crap in creating a good defense, though, nowadays we don't even need a defence because no one wants Sweden anyways. But whatever.. Ehmm, where were I? Yeah, I want females in the army at the same standard as men! I don't want any exceptions made at all. If they can qualify for everything that a man can qualify I welcome then with open arms.. If they just get it "easier" then they can go for some other job. Police officer or whatever.

There will always be dumb people harrassing eachother and what not. The guys do this and the girls do that. I know every possible situation, trust me, I live with 3 other girls in the same house so I've heard it all. To be honest,I believe the guys are taking the blame alot from what I hear about the girls around me. But hey, they don't really share my point of view. So even if there is a 10 percentage of @ssholes there will still not be anything we can do about it. I mean, we can't really help the fact that there is a amount of people who do like to blame others for stupid stuff.

Oh.. there was one more thing.. Sexistic doesn't mean "I'm all against women".. At keast not in my point of view. I believe that it's sexistic when they see a difference in men and women. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE! But! If we use the same guideline and tests for them both there isn't really anything different about them. If a women lack in the strength apartment then she will have to be determined enough tog et those muscles. Is that bad? Nope. It just shows more dedication. But there should be the *same* guidelines for both of the genders. No exeptions. Then it won't be sexistic anymore.

By the way: I do now know if the army here in Sweden makes it easier for women. Who cares anyways? Our military suck. Truly.

This is a chick that can kick the crap out of me. I acknowledge that. I'm no wimp but I feel confident that she'd take me. She'll also do more pushups, situps, benchpress ... whatever you like. She'll do more than me. She can likely handle are bigger range of firearms that I can as well.

Now this is a case to the extreme, but I'm just using it to illustrate. There are women out there that are naturally very strong and others that are naturally very driven to become very strong. The point is, if she can do everything that the men are required to do, then she wouldn't likely be any hinderance on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

...she wouldn't likely be any hinderance on the battlefield.

Instead, everyone would just be like, "Wow." and stop fighting.