Originally Posted by canadianpatriot

I think this is a stereotype. Not all women are fragile , and many can lift just as much or more then men. I think if a woman is able to do the job she should be allowed to do it.

Actually, it isn't a stereotype. Women have smaller skeletal structures than men, that means smaller bones, and that means easier breaks. They may not be fragile mentally, but their bodies are more fragile than a male's.

Originally Posted by PJ24

Actually, it isn't a stereotype. Women have smaller skeletal structures than men, that means smaller bones, and that means easier breaks. They may not be fragile mentally, but their bodies are more fragile than a male's.

Hmmmm. I think you have a point. I think I will go and read some of the human body to actually be able to see the "weak" differences or not.

Though, I recalled something about if the pressure is higher then the muscle..something.. then the bone breaks and sicne the men has more muscles it should be harder for them to break.

Wow, Thanks.

Now I really have something to study to be honest. Thank you.

Originally Posted by SilverPhoenix

Hmmmm. I think you have a point. I think I will go and read some of the human body to actually be able to see the "weak" differences or not.

Though, I recalled something about if the pressure is higher then the muscle..something.. then the bone breaks and sicne the men has more muscles it should be harder for them to break. But then again, is that due to the women does lack in getting the daily calcium that every woman need? Or do the men need the calcium as much as the women?

Wow, Thanks.

Now I really have something to study to be honest. Thank you.

Women in general are the "weaker" sex physically, their bodies weren't designed around physical work where as men were designed to be the club bearing grunting hunters.

Female bones are usually lighter and smaller, while their pelvis is wider (to help with child birth). Male bones are longer, thicker and the pelvis is more narrow. Because of that, women are more prone to stress fractures than men.

As for calcium, everyone needs it, male or female. Without it, your bones become more brittle. Although osteoporosis is less common in men than in women, men do lose bone density as they age and should take calcium as seriously as women.

On a side note, women tend to have better lower body strength than males. That isn't to say every one can leg press 900lbs (as if every man can) but on average, it is easier for them to gain lower body strength faster than a male, just as he is able to gain upper body strength faster.

Originally Posted by PJ24

Women in general are the "weaker" sex physically, their bodies weren't designed around physical work where as men were designed to be the club bearing grunting hunters.

Female bones are usually lighter and smaller, while their pelvis is wider (to help with child birth). Male bones are longer, thicker and the pelvis is more narrow. Because of that, women are more prone to stress fractures than men.

As for calcium, everyone needs it, male or female. Without it, your bones become more brittle. Although osteoporosis is less common in men than in women, men do lose bone density as they age and should take calcium as seriously as women.

On a side note, women tend to have better lower body strength than males. That isn't to say every one can leg press 900lbs (as if every man can) but on average, it is easier for them to gain lower body strength faster than a male, just as he is able to gain upper body strength faster.

Thanks!

I can nothing but agree. But then again, IF a woman makes the criteria to be a military soldier, then why not? Even if she has a lighter bone structure it's not really something she can "work-up" as she can work up her muscles.. Do you think we should exclude women on the field due to weak bones?

Originally Posted by SilverPhoenix

Thanks!

I can nothing but agree. But then again, IF a woman makes the criteria to be a military soldier, then why not? Even if she has a lighter bone structure it's not really something she can "work-up" as she can work up her muscles.. Do you think we should exclude women on the field due to weak bones?

Well see, you and I are speaking from different perspectives. The US military currently allows women in just about every job open. The exception being combat arms, like infantry. I think a lot of people assume if you aren't in a combat arms job, you won't see combat but you can and especially in today's conflict, do. There's an AAR floating around about an MP unit, here's a synop of what one of our National Guard MPs did:

Hester's squad was shadowing a supply convoy March 20 when anti-Iraqi fighters ambushed the convoy. The squad moved to the side of the road, flanking the insurgents and cutting off their escape route. Hester led her team through the "kill zone" and into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenade-launcher rounds. She and Nein, her squad leader, then cleared two trenches, at which time she killed three insurgents with her rifle. When the fight was over, 27 insurgents were dead, six were wounded, and one was captured.

Sgt. Hester was awarded the Silver Star for her actions.

I think you'll see that women are actively engaged in "combat" in the US military and they are performing very well within their roles, and sometimes outside of.

I wish we had more US female soldiers on this board, especially our combat vets, because I think you would be surprised at what they get to do and have done.

We do have to be mindful of the standards we set for women because if we set them too high, we'll have a bunch of injured female soldiers running around that are combat ineffective and that hurts the mission. This is something we don't do with males either. For example, running with a ruck in training. We don't do it, it is too much of a risk for injury. If I'm running with 45lbs to 130lbs on my back, you can bet somebody is after my ass.

Women aren't excluded from the field, just from combat arms jobs. And there are a lot of reasons for that, from the physical to the behavioral. But women being excluded from combat itself is a thing of the past, even if we wanted to keep women far in the rear we couldn't because they make up a bigger percentage of our force now than ever, and excluding them for the sake of excluding them would again, hurt the mission.

Originally Posted by PJ24

Well see, you and I are speaking from different perspectives. The US military currently allows women in just about every job open. The exception being combat arms, like infantry. I think a lot of people assume if you aren't in a combat arms job, you won't see combat but you can and especially in today's conflict, do. There's an AAR floating around about an MP unit, here's a synop of what one of our National Guard MPs did:




[/center]

Sgt. Hester was awarded the Silver Star for her actions.


[/font]I think you'll see that women are actively engaged in "combat" in the US military and they are performing very well within their roles, and sometimes outside of.

I wish we had more US female soldiers on this board, especially our combat vets, because I think you would be surprised at what they get to do and have done.

We do have to be mindful of the standards we set for women because if we set them too high, we'll have a bunch of injured female soldiers running around that are combat ineffective and that hurts the mission. This is something we don't do with males either. For example, running with a ruck in training. We don't do it, it is too much of a risk for injury. If I'm running with 45lbs to 130lbs on my back, you can bet somebody is after my ass.

Women aren't excluded from the field, just from combat arms jobs. And there are a lot of reasons for that, from the physical to the behavioral. But women being excluded from combat itself is a thing of the past, even if we wanted to keep women far in the rear we couldn't because they make up a bigger percentage of our force now than ever, and excluding them for the sake of excluding them would again, hurt the mission.

I see. Well, I understand your point totally and not to be stupid, but that's really what I do't get. How many differences is there really for having a girl on the field? Other from that, I don't think women are not satisfied with their military jobs. But I do think that if women can reach other jobs within the military then the field shouldn't be excluded. What's the behavioral reason to not have them on the field?

Originally Posted by SilverPhoenix

I see. Well, I understand your point totally and not to be stupid, but that's really what I do't get. How many differences is there really for having a girl on the field? Other from that, I don't think women are not satisfied with their military jobs. But I do think that if women can reach other jobs within the military then the field shouldn't be excluded. What's the behavioral reason to not have them on the field?

I'm not sure what you mean by "field." To me, the field is where you go and play soldier for days, weeks, etc. Women, in the US military, go on field training exercises, they're also deployed to forward operating bases.

So really, here, women already go to the field. Are there problems? Yes. We have some. Boys and girls, when put together tend to play. It's no different than in the civilian world. If you work in an office, you can bet at least two people you work with are sleeping together or have in the past. You'll also have those males that think it's okay to take whatever liberty they want with a female, and those females that think flirting, looking pretty and catching a male's eye is more important than her job or those that think it's okay to file a complaint everytime I male makes a lewd joke and she happens to be in ear shot. For the most part, though, our combat support and service support units do fine at least as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by PJ24

So really, here, women already go to the field. Are there problems? Yes. We have some. Boys and girls, when put together tend to play. It's no different than in the civilian world. If you work in an office, you can bet at least two people you work with are sleeping together or have in the past. You'll also have those males that think it's okay to take whatever liberty they want with a female, and those females that think flirting, looking pretty and catching a male's eye is more important than her job or those that think it's okay to file a complaint everytime I male makes a lewd joke and she happens to be in ear shot. For the most part, though, our combat support and service support units do fine at least as far as I can tell.

Precisely why I'm saying that you would need separate units. Women are already deployed in non-combat arms into war in the US military, as well as many other militaries. Damage is done there. I can see the point that women who can pass the same tests should have the choice of combat deployment, however I feel that separate units would be the best method of keeps the above problems from occurring.

Well, in China, there is a whole battlion of women deployed under a combat vocation. They used these women to fight wars like men!

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

I can see the point that women who can pass the same tests should have the choice of combat deployment, however I feel that separate units would be the best method of keeps the above problems from occurring.

It's too bad that some can't keep private life and the job seperate but I guess that the problem will always be there between female and male workers. It would nice to see how a "all female"-unit would work out.. I can see those backsatabs coming..


Zander: So they fight beside men in combat?