we are not discussing mixing them with male units we are talking about letting them fight on th front lines. that would entail adding another unit for females, which is not economically cost effective apparently, which I think might be a good point but I just get mad when its because we have "less" strength and all the sudden that is the main reason. YOu might have noticed my listless posts on other pages.

Welcome to the forum Global Hawk (cool name)

Well, Im sorry , but your still wrong. Its not cost effective in most cases.Women generally are weaker then men. The military is not ment to satisfy the feminists, it role is defend the country....

Originally Posted by sherman105

The military is not ment to satisfy the feminists, it role is defend the country....

Please, Do not count me as a feminist in this point.

All I want, is to be able to defend my country and if I have to do it by myself because the system won't let me in. It doesn't matter for me.

But what does matter is that I can't get the same training for it that men does. It's fine for me to put me in a whole group of women instead of mixing it with men.

But not being able to serve my own country makes me feel a bit.. I dunno, I can't seem to find the words for it.

Less worth then guys? Is that the feeling I try to describe?

Yeah, I feel rather useless.. And I am sick of it, man.

finally someone who gets it. All we want is the choice. Weather or not the military is going to support does not stop the want. the people who disagree could at least acknowledge that it is a valid desire for women to want to play that role, especcially the men that do it and love it.


SHerman there are a lot of things the military does that does not have anything to do with defending a country directly, whether it be satisfying feminist or not. I am not a feminist I am a normal human being that just believes in more in somethings than others. If your manhood was up for scrutiny you would defend it i am sure.

Ok, first of all, no one said it wasn't a valid desire, but to be a bit harsh, have you ever heard the term "want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first?" There are many valid reasons for why females are not in certain units, as have been laid out in previous posts, but these have been wholly dismissed by both of you.

And just being honest, airmen2b, nobody started "scrutinizing" your womanhood (or SilverPhoenix's), both threads on this subject were started by you two . You asked for our thoughts on the subject, and we done give 'em to you.

hmm, hmm, hmm

I did not ask for anyones opinion, but do appreciate them all. Here is what i will do for you, you accept that women want to fight and that it ok, and I will accept that that there are physiological differences between the two and we can leave it at that.

Check this out: Would you agree that men have a slight advantage in combat, on average? Even a TINY TINY one? Yes?
Okay, now, would you agree that women are every damn bit as good at operating machinery and working in factories? At driving transports and paving roads? And can they do most of this work while pregnant? Yes?
So, it would appear to me that, by demanding their "right" to serve on the front lines, they are in fact shortchanging the whole war effort by refusing to do duties for which they are better suited than men. For every woman on the front lines, there is a hole in a rear echelon which will be filled by the man she displaced. For every female warrior, there will be a male nurse or clerk. For every 100 lb female grunt, there will be a 200 lb male cook, truck driver, or data entry specialist.
The women concerned with this issue are NOT concerned with "serving" their country, they are concerned with serving their own egos by showing they are just as good as the boys. Ladies, we already KNOW you are just as good. You are the best thing on this planet, and when you have to fight, we know you can. But you can SERVE your country best by making sure we have a country worth defending and coming home to. I know that won't sit well with the feminists, but that's what free speech is for.

Hell, look at this, I agree with you Jamoni. Anyone else seen them demons running around with scarves and mittens?

jamoni after endless attempts of trying to prove a point, I have to admit that that was very well put and logical. That is something i can live to agree with. Thank you.

Originally Posted by sherman105

Well, Im sorry , but your still wrong. Its not cost effective in most cases.Women generally are weaker then men. The military is not ment to satisfy the feminists, it role is defend the country....

Since when does pure strength matter ?
We don't live in the middle ages when it still mattered to a large degree.

It's all about endurance and if you can handle pain,confusion,terror and still think and properly perform your actions.

Already studies find woman are the best fighter pilots because there body can handle more G's.
They need to be fit they need to be able to kill, and they need to be able to run with 60kg's on there back while beeing tired,thirsty and hungry.

Maybe men fear the idea of beeing killed by a woman more then they do by a man.
Maybe they fear there own emotions when faced with having to kill a attractive female enemy combatant.

I personally would love to see a female soldier cut the throat of Bin Laden.

And thanks for the friendly welcome