(The lost women in military thread)

[Edited on 19-7-2003 by FreeMason]

For some reason, FreeMason wanted this thread to go missing. It seems that given the nature of people's concerns over it's disappearance, there is a desire to see this topic play out.

I urge everyone involved to continue this discussion in a mature and reasoned manner. Otherwise, it will go missing again.

The original post was apparently removed by FM.

-William





[Edited on 19-7-2003 by William]

because there's no hum vee between the kitchen and the bedroom

*ducks and runs for life*

FM

Your gonna loose this, even if you win the arguement!!

do you really have to fart all over the board with this, FM? sheesh. you'd think one flame bait would be enough for one night. regardless, Boudicca deserves a repost.

link

linked for swear words. highly worth the click.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Yeah yeah we all know the gun greatly reduces the need for "physical prowess", but not really.

In WW2 the average usage of the gun was at 300 feet or closer.

Speed and strength is still very necessary as the average distance of engagement has not changed.

Women in logistics (based on my opinion) is no better, but that's at least more acceptable.

But Women in combat rolls should never come to pass.

www.auburn.edu...

1) A study of lifting ability conducted by the Navy revealed that only the top 7% of Navy women scored better than the lowest scoring Navy man (NCPA 1)

2) Studies also show that " jobs which entail fixing a tank, carrying a stretcher, or throwing a hand grenade far enough for safety are beyond the physical capacity of nearly all women"(NCPA 2).

Fixing a tank especially, the most common problem with a tank will be the treads, when a tread needs mending, each kleet weighs over 20 lbs, and takes several strong men to wrench the tread back into place.

In the battlefield, a woman growing too tired to help fix a tread, could cost the Army the use of that tank.

Maternity leave is also a problem in the Military (to all those women who seem to think they can keep their legs closed).

Pregnancy becomes a problem especially in the combat zone. An article in Stars and Stripes reported that one women was evacuated from Bosnia for pregnancy every three days (Gutman 21).

Interesting tidbit:

A 1992 Army study about requiring women to serve in combat found that, if compelled to serve in combat, 52% of women soldiers claim they would "probably" or "definitely" leave the service all together (Donnely 18)

"Women offer little to the readiness and effectiveness of ground combat units. Lowering standards and conducting sensing surveys to prove women will be successful in combat will be worthless when the bullets are flying over their head. It is unfortunate that the military is so dominated by the politically correct mentality that it has succumbed to promoting blind equality. War is not and never was about equality. It has always been about survivability, and to survive on the battlefield you must have the strongest, most efficient army, not the fairest and most diverse." -- From source.

I have met no one in the military yet that approves of the "lowering of standards" that is going on.

My friend and I were already past 100% on the physical test for acception to Airborne, and neither of us even worked out through all of high school...

That was a shocker.

There are more than "moral reasons" to not have women in the military, all you need to do is look.

Stop denying the studies because a girl can shoot...wars are not won by shooting alone...it's won by speed, by strength, by sacrifice. (The latter a chick can perform completely theoretically, if they're mentally up to it.) And the others women and men share (Courage, love for country) and so forth.

Yeah, I hope anyone who wishes to retort this, can do so without "flaming".

Women in the military aren't going to get tired anymore than a man would when fixing a tank.

For those who have ever considered some serious real life training in the ballistic arts, please check this place out...

www.thunderranchinc.com...

It is operated by a husband and wife team, Clint and Heidi Smith. Heidi does at least 50% of the training in the ballistic arts, and I PROMISE you beyond a shadow of a doubt, she can run rings around at least 75% of the SWAT officers who attend courses there... I know this for a fact, as I have personally seen her do it. She is in her mid 40s, and can easily wind me on a combat course.

In real life combat, where the targets shoot back at you with real bullets? I would count myself EXTREMELY fortunate to find Heidi at my side in a foxhole. If she, or any of her disciples were to pair with a male team member for real life combat, I would say that the males chances of survival just increased at least 50%.

Women shouldnt have a place in combat? If they are physically able and have the correct mindset, they can do serious damage to the opposition.... If you still have a problem with that, you have no concept of true combat...

Dude...

you're askin for it....

I think that there are a lot of jobs in the military that women can do just as good or even better than men. But when it comes to combat that should be left to the guys.

FM, you really set yourself up on this one, not only are the woman going to tear you apart, but most men will too.

*waiting for Gryffen to appear*

Women are an integral part of the military and are just as capable as men.

Originally posted by David
FM, you really set yourself up on this one, not only are the woman going to tear you apart, but most men will too.

*waiting for Gryffen to appear*

it's too bad. I talked to her in chat and she told me she was on duty 5 hours from then...which is about now. she probably won't be able to post in the women-can't-be-in-the-military thread for a while because she's on military duty!

Originally posted by rahboni
Dude...

you're askin for it....

then let him have it if he wants it so badly.

who are we to stand between a person and his ass whooping?

Women not in combat???

Hmm...

Guess you didnt hear about the female Russian snipers that cut the Germans to shreds in the battle for Stalingrad?

Guess you never heard of the female Israeli battalions that fought the Egyptians and Jordanians to a standstill during the 6 Day War? (Using FALs against Soviet T-56 tanks?)

Guess you never heard of the female Croatian counter-snipers that leveled the field against the Serb snipers who routinely killed large numbers of unarmed civilians?

Guess you never head of the first British female paratrooper to complete SAS training and go on active duty with the SAS?

[Edited on 19-7-2003 by FreeMason]

Sorry,
But both men AND women fall short...

The most powerful warrior has a brain made of circuits. He feels nought and cares nought.

While the world is debating the 'should women be allowed' issue, both men and women are being replaced on the battlefield by the machine...

That is, the purely androgynous robot will replace all of us biological creatures with reproductive-specific organs fairly soon...

and, in the meantime, why can't a woman hit the 'fire' button for a Predator as well as a man?

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by onlyinmydreams]

*snags the lawn chair from one thread over and cracks open another cold one*

What, this is my forum...

Originally posted by FreeMason
Odd I've yet to see anyone address anything but opinions.

And Dragonrider's usual "Well women can shoot" obviously dragonrider you know nothing of Military Science.

As for everyone else...just opinions.

What's the percent of women that can throw a grenade far enough to not take shrapnel? (You could answer this if you looked at the reports).

What's the percent of women who can lift more than the lowest lifting ability of the average man in the NAVY? (you could answer that).

There are more factors than "Women CAN do it".

Sure they CAN do it...they are not GOOD at it, besides the whole Chivalric code of keeping women FROM harm, women shouldn't be there because the MAJORITY of them can't handle it.

Dragonrider again you fail to note....the standards for being in the military have gone down...CONSIDERABLY.

And this isn't Flame bait if no one wants to flame, but I suppose I can see how it can be, there is plenty of evidence supporting my argument, and a bunch of useless opinions against my argument.

Again I am not so much against women in the logistical aspects though personally I see no point in them being there either.

It's in the combat positions they should not be in.

I'll close for the short of memory, with, how about presenting evidence that all women can equally fight as the men can.

You'll find the number more around 7%...

*Laughs at DR*...gosh, you asked me once, what my extent of "combat experience was" but obviously it's more than yours because I atleast know how a war is fought.

Mr...."Sniper".

Well, astound us. What are women's roles in your 1950's vision of America?

Critiques in Bold

Originally posted by dragonrider
Women not in combat???

Hmm...

Guess you didnt hear about the female Russian snipers that cut the Germans to shreds in the battle for Stalingrad?

Objectionable, I can equally argue that it was not the female snipers, of which there were so FEW, it was the SAW automatic rifle.

Guess you never heard of the female Israeli battalions that fought the Egyptians and Jordanians to a standstill during the 6 Day War? (Using FALs against Soviet T-56 tanks?)

Guess I haven't, because a T-56's armor protects it from about an 80mm round....pathetic by the 6 Day war.

Guess you never heard of the female Croatian counter-snipers that leveled the field against the Serb snipers who routinely killed large numbers of unarmed civilians?

Again with snipers. 1) Objectionable...who says they actually did ANYTHING to circumvent the enemy snipers, you seem to think two things, that there were ONLY women snipers, and that there were no other conventional methods of combat that got them. I.E. mortars.

Guess you never head of the first British female paratrooper to complete SAS training and go on active duty with the SAS?

miss read this one: Still though one exception which I'll agree there are probably thousands of exceptions. But the SAS is not the mainstain of the combat force. Dragonrider, when will you learn clandestine and sniper warfare is about 15% of the combat effectiveness of a military.

Dragonrider, where's your evidence anywhere that a Woman fights a war as well as a man, and is a valuable service to a war?

We won WW2 without Women Snipers, and without Women on the front lines.

Meanwhile, the Russians lost 400,000 in the battle of stalingrad, the Germans lost 300,000 in that battle, and a little over about a million, if even near that throughout the entire Eastern campaign.

The Russians lost about 3 million through out that campaign, and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in my head (off the head statistics, don't feel like looking those up yet).

Dragonrider your arguments at best are pathetic, supporting female combatants on the front lines...

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by FreeMason]

FM, you obviously havent gone to my link, and most obviously HAVE NO FREAKING IDEA OF WHAT GOES ON AT THUNDER RANCH!!!!!

Shooting is a big part of it, but you are TOTALLY missing the extreme physical exercises that you are put through, and I dont just mean jumping and running... how about scaling walls and firing one handed? How about crawling through a sewer pipe? How about ascending 6 flights of stairs backwards firing as you go, and make the top in less than 3 minutes? This is just to name a few things, and to do this at least 6 times each in a day.

You know what a war is about??? Really. Please do explain. And also regale us with tales of the last time you ever had a bullet head in your direction.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Objectionable, I can equally argue that it was not the female snipers, of which there were so FEW, it was the SAW automatic rifle.

For the sake of history, the Squad Automatic Weapon, was not in production then. If we are refuring to a time prior to Desert Storm. As I'm pretty sure the SAW was not even a ruff draft in those days.

I have been wrong before, and the alcohol may have me impaired, but I'm pretty sure about this.

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by ADVISOR]

Originally posted by FreeMason
Critiques in Bold

Originally posted by dragonrider
Women not in combat???

Hmm...

Guess you didnt hear about the female Russian snipers that cut the Germans to shreds in the battle for Stalingrad?

Objectionable, I can equally argue that it was not the female snipers, of which there were so FEW, it was the SAW automatic rifle.

There was NO SAW in WWII... The best there was was the German MG-42 or the US M-1928 BAR, neither of which were in use by Russian forces... please get your history and your weapons right. Guess that shows your credibility on that subject...

Guess you never heard of the female Israeli battalions that fought the Egyptians and Jordanians to a standstill during the 6 Day War? (Using FALs against Soviet T-56 tanks?)

Guess I haven't, because a T-56's armor protects it from about an 80mm round....pathetic by the 6 Day war.

You are obviously missing the very ingenious tank traps that the female battalions erected to take out tank treads, set them on fire ect... dont remember that being in your "how to be a war hero" thread

Guess you never heard of the female Croatian counter-snipers that leveled the field against the Serb snipers who routinely killed large numbers of unarmed civilians?

Again with snipers. 1) Objectionable...who says they actually did ANYTHING to circumvent the enemy snipers, you seem to think two things, that there were ONLY women snipers, and that there were no other conventional methods of combat that got them. I.E. mortars.

The female Croat snipers are very well documented as well as thier effect on the civilian casualty rate... also the Croats had very little in the way of field artillery or other advanced weapons... so yes, it did come down to sniper duels

Guess you never head of the first British female paratrooper to complete SAS training and go on active duty with the SAS?

Odd they must train with their own gender. Question, can't they keep up with the men?

Actually, she DID train with the men, and was given NO special considerations. And according to reports, she skunked the men on several stages

Dragonrider, where's your evidence anywhere that a Woman fights a war as well as a man, and is a valuable service to a war?

We won WW2 without Women Snipers, and without Women on the front lines.


The US didnt win the war due to any military genius... we out gunned, out produced the enemy, which was greatly helped by the fact that the Russians had destroyed a significant amount of the German resources

Meanwhile, the Russians lost 400,000 in the battle of stalingrad, the Germans lost 300,000 in that battle, and a little over about a million, if even near that throughout the entire Eastern campaign.

The Russians lost about 3 million through out that campaign, and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in my head (off the head statistics, don't feel like looking those up yet).

Dragonrider your arguments at best are pathetic, supporting female combatants on the front lines...

I dare say I have a MUCH more realistic view of combat than someone who has never shouldered a rifle.