Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines) page 30

832 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by EPR89:

So periods decrease physical strength by 10% now?

When you are in any kind of pain, your over all effectiveness decreases, it occupies your mind and all that.

Yeah,
BUT….the utter hell-damage a woman can do during PMS faaaarrrrrr dominates any loss because of a mere “period” time-out.
Give me a battalion of bull-dykes w/ rotation of periods, and I’ll wipe out ANY nation on earth.
.
.
.
.
Er, t-pun….ya can’t dig yerself outta a hole.
Give this line of “reasoning” up while ya can….lol
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
BUT….the utter hell-damage a woman can do during PMS faaaarrrrrr dominates any loss because of a mere “period” time-out.

Fun fact: most of the time PMS isn’t actually PMS.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
BUT….the utter hell-damage a woman can do during PMS faaaarrrrrr dominates any loss because of a mere “period” time-out.

Fun fact: most of the time PMS isn’t actually PMS.

Fun Fact: Women don’t get PMS during their period.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
BUT….the utter hell-damage a woman can do during PMS faaaarrrrrr dominates any loss because of a mere “period” time-out.

Fun fact: most of the time PMS isn’t actually PMS.

Well…yes & no

“Culturally, the abbreviation PMS is widely understood in English-speaking countries to refer to difficulties associated with menses, and the abbreviation is used frequently even in casual and colloquial settings, without regard to medical rigor. In these contexts, the syndrome is rarely referred to without abbreviation, and the connotations of the reference are frequently more broad than the clinical definition.”

Originally posted by shaunsred:

Fun Fact: Women don’t get PMS during their period.

Really?
Ya don’t say?
Who does YOUR “fact checking” for ya?
PRE-menstural syndrome should give ya a clue.
That is IF ya know that pre- means BEFORE or prior to.

“The specific emotional and physical symptoms attributable to PMS vary from woman to woman, but each individual woman’s pattern of symptoms is predictable, occurs consistently during the ten days prior to menses.”

 
Flag Post

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/?hpt=hp_c1

If they end up realizing how much combat sucks, they can always just get pregnant and go home!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/?hpt=hp_c1

And the only bad news here is some of the hilariously mysogynistic comments.

 
Flag Post

What did you expect Tenco ?
Look at that “serious discussion”…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/?hpt=hp_c1

And the only bad news here is some of the hilariously misogynistic comments.

tenco, I read the entirity of the link and wasn’t able to find anything that was much in the way of being “misogynistic”. What was it that ya saw? Rather, I thought it ALL read as if there are some really positive approaches to the integration of females into the combat areas of the military. It certainly appears that they want to do it in a sensible manner rather than just quantum-leap into it as they did w/ allowing gays to serve openly. Of course, for the most part, this only changed “perception-dynamics”….the Gays were already serving IN areas that might have been “questioned” before the policy change.

However, in reading it…I found I hadn’t delved into “corners” of the issue that propably do have significant aspects that will indeed be a large part of this “assessment phase” of the integration.

Of course, the link discussed the obvious concerns about a lowering of standards of a fighting unit’s ability to successfully meet the mission. But then, we’ve talked that aspect to death on this forum.

What I found interesting is how the link brought up the concept of how being denied full equality for combat experience ALSO denied them equal opportunity for PROMOTION and all the other aspects afforded such duty…pride, honor, “bragging rights”, etc.

Something NOT in the link, but yet was a result of my reading it, is obvious.. yet something I don’t think has yet been discussed here: BODILY FUNCTIONS. When on patrol, there are no “porta-potties” out there…the eliminatory processes will still have to be met. This raises an interesting question….or two. ( <— lol, do ya get the double entendre? #2 ?)

If a female can find cover, she can do her “business” in privacy. No problem there, most guys aren’t really interested in seeing a fellow soldier take a crap…or even watching him piss facing them.

It is when such bodily activity HAS TO BE performed within close proximity of the squad that might be of “interest”. #2 will require the same form of removal of uniform…obviously.
BUT, females can’t simply “unzip” and write their name in the snow. They will probably still need to “squat to piss”.

OR, something mose shophisticated than the stadium buddy would need to be used.
There is something used by astronauts that is more advanced than Depends adult “diapers”.
I’m guessing this commodity isn’t limited to NASA, I understand that brides use something similar….due to the (very likely?) lack of time (and interest of handling a huge dress while sitting on a commode) to go whiz.

It appears there are already some forms of thinking along these lines being used by the military
So, I don’t think elimination of bodily waste will be all that much of a proble for a patrol. The Israely Army has had females for years. I imagine we can do what they have been doing…if not even better. After all, we are #1 <— lol

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
tenco, I read the entirity of the link and wasn’t able to find anything that was much in the way of being “misogynistic”. What was it that ya saw?

It was in the comments section of the article.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
tenco, I read the entirity of the link and wasn’t able to find anything that was much in the way of being “misogynistic”. What was it that ya saw?

It was in the comments section of the article.

Aha…I didn’t read those.
BUT….I will now…LOL

 
Flag Post

no. war is not a game.
their minds and bodies arent as evolved physically and mentally as men.
war is not a game, get the PC nonsense out of it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:

their minds and bodies arent as evolved physically and mentally as men.

You always claim that.
What I’d like you to do is finally show us something to prove it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Galdos:

their minds and bodies arent as evolved physically and mentally as men.

You always claim that.
What I’d like you to do is finally show us something to prove it.

How about you two have an arm wrestling match?
Winners is right.

 
Flag Post

The “period” comments… have any of those who think periods decrease effectiveness or strength or whatever realized there are means of preventing having periods? Or at least preventing effects? The pill? Not to say painkillers? Lol, some of the posts make it sound like the period is some sort of terrible horror. And actually the fact that women get used to it is more of an argument in favor of their higher pain endurance than against.

I obviously support women in the military, I have a girl lieutenant friend and she finds it no problem whatsoever.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Galdos:

their minds and bodies arent as evolved physically and mentally as men.

You always claim that.
What I’d like you to do is finally show us something to prove it.

How about you two have an arm wrestling match?
Winners is right.

If you are implying that a girl could never beat a man in an arm wrestling match, watch this?

On a totally different, never before touched note in this thread, that has never before been brought up: how about you show me that strength is the only thing that matters on the frontlines?

 
Flag Post

If with “fight in the frontline” you mean make me a sandwich while I’m raining bullets to the enemy, yes, they should.

 
Flag Post

It’s not something I necessarily agree with, but that’s the way it is. Women are not permitted to serve in any combat role (Armour, Artillery, Infantry, Combat Engineers).

However, women can serve in support jobs in combat units. On my last LFX, the gun tractor driver for my detachment (artillery) was a woman. The drivers do everything else the gunners do, except pull the lanyard or play with the handwheels. But of course, the Royal Australian Artillery hasn’t actually deployed overseas with the guns since Vietnam.

 
Flag Post

if she is capable the let them do it.

 
Flag Post

Of course. It’s not about gender, it’s about capabilities.

 
Flag Post

As well as any other man desiring to join the force, they should be required to have a certain amount of strength, intelligence, and mental capacity.

 
Flag Post

What about when a woman is captured? What happens if she is raped? And what if she becomes pregnant by her rapist? Who cares if she can aim the rifle better or worse than her male peers, that’s miles above the tip of the iceberg.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ruehavyn:

What about when a woman is captured?

So it’s exceptionally bad if a woman soldier is in danger (’cause, honestly, who wants a fine pair of titties to be hurt?), but less so if a man is?

What happens if she is raped? And what if she becomes pregnant by her rapist?

Unfortunately, you don’t need be captured for that to happen.

Who cares if she can aim the rifle better or worse than her male peers, that’s miles above the tip of the iceberg.

So you’re basically saying it’s dangerous to fight in a war?

Never would have guessed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

So you’re basically saying it’s dangerous to fight in a war?

Never would have guessed.

I’ll connect the dots for you.
Having female soldiers carrying the babies of the enemy is perhaps not an ideal situation.
It creates another psychologically damaging aspect (with many related complications) to war, which was likely bad enough already.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ruehavyn:
Originally posted by tenco1:

So you’re basically saying it’s dangerous to fight in a war?

Never would have guessed.

I’ll connect the dots for you.
Having female soldiers carrying the babies of the enemy is perhaps not an ideal situation.
It creates another psychologically damaging aspect (with many related complications) to war, which was likely bad enough already.

Raping war criminals is not war. It’s a violation of the rules we have set ourselves for war. If you want to base your arguments on what could happen with war crimes then we would have to ban everyone from joning armed forces because of the potential of psychological pressure.
You also seem to assume that every female prisoner of war will undoubtedly get raped. That’s an incredibly weak basis for banning all women from volunteering to join the army.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ruehavyn:

I’ll connect the dots for you.
Having female soldiers carrying the babies of the enemy is perhaps not an ideal situation.

Methinketh ye dots all be a weeeebit fuzzy.
What makes ya think women who would take up arms to KILL ppl might not be quite capable of accepting the obvious consequence of an abortion….should such pregnancy occur? Maybe ALL women should just stay home behind a moat & locked doors so they don’t get raped….eh?
Ya’re gonna have to come up w/ a much better argument than rape/pregnancy on this issue.
.

It creates another psychologically damaging aspect (with many related complications) to war, which was likely bad enough already.

See the bold part?
NOW,,,
tell me just how this “another psychologically damaging aspect” compares to varous kinds of humiliation/torture to women?
Expand on this, please.
Is it above or below seeing a good buddy’s guts hanging out,,,
or his leg hanging on by a sinew,,,
or blood spurting out 3 feet from a bullet to his throat?
How about having to kill a child because a gook was using it as a shield while spewing bullets at your open-ground squad?

YOUR interest in “protecting the weaker gender” is greatly laudable; however, by comparison to things “already bad enough” …. it really isn’t all that much of a good reason to dismiss the ladies from exercising their interest in fighting for what they hold dear.