(The lost women in military thread)

He never was in the military

Ok i'm going to break from the rest of the thread here and make a point relating to the original topic.
Woman are generally perfectly capable in the military execpt for issues of strength, this is of no fault of their own but comes down to biology. It's a simple fact that to build fast twitch musle fibres you need both the right imput fuel (protiens etc) and also a certain level of testosterone, this is as testosterone is one of the key ingredients to building large powerful muscles. It is also a fact that GENERALLY women possess far less natural testosterone in their bodies than men, hense why a woman cannot naturally develop large bulging muscles arnie style. However we are all indviduals, so i'm sure there are women out there with higher levels of testosterone that enables them to perform on an equal par with their male counterparts. If anyone seems to think that women are incapable of performing other military duties as well as men, then I would suggest they go on tour in a combat zone with some, Northern Ireland is still a good place to test this.

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

Originally posted by Banshee

Originally posted by ThermoNuke
No, but you keep bestowing ocular strain upon me by forcing to read the 60 lines of text pertaining to your past when I'd rather be masturbating with sandpaper.

I like this guy.
*hands TN a cookie*



-B.

Yeah, he's quite the little pistol isn't he? Here, thermo...I just got through baking cookies...have another...and some chocolate milk.

[Edited on 19-7-2003 by Valhall]

Originally posted by feygan
Ok i'm going to break from the rest of the thread here and make a point relating to the original topic.

Woman are generally perfectly capable in the military execpt for issues of strength, this is of no fault of their own but comes down to biology. It's a simple fact that to build fast twitch musle fibres you need both the right imput fuel (protiens etc) and also a certain level of testosterone, this is as testosterone is one of the key ingredients to building large powerful muscles. It is also a fact that GENERALLY women possess far less natural testosterone in their bodies than men, hense why a woman cannot naturally develop large bulging muscles arnie style. However we are all indviduals, so i'm sure there are women out there with higher levels of testosterone that enables them to perform on an equal par with their male counterparts. If anyone seems to think that women are incapable of performing other military duties as well as men, then I would suggest they go on tour in a combat zone with some, Northern Ireland is still a good place to test this.

This is perhaps one of the most intelligent posts in this thread.
Strength itself has more to do with hormones than gender. Just as there are women who produce higher than average amounts of testosterone, there are men that produce less than average.
(by the by, more testosterone doesn't make a woman more masculinized, per se. I have a mild hormonal imbalance leaning towards testosterone, and I am in no way "manly" www.mwf-live.com... )
This is a good article about women and strength:
www.strengthcats.com...

Now, before anyone spouts off about this being the exact "proof" they need that women should not be in the military, I'll raise another point.
The areas women generally have the most trouble with are their upper body muscles. Men can easily do a few pullups (except my workout parter, he can't do a single one and he's strong as all hell), while most women struggle to do just one.
But why is it that men walk around with these big broad shoulders and teeny little bird legs? I realize military physical fitness standards are meant to replicate what could happen on a battlefield, but there's not just one single way of doing things. If a pullup indicates you can haul yourself over an obstacle, why not make that a little easier by adding a burst of leg strength to help? That's not lowering the standard, that's just plain smart.

-B.

Nice to be apprieciated, however I was mearly pointing out the reason why the majority of women have a harder time with physical strength. As to why we have teeny legs, well that comes down to evolution and us being hunter gatherers by nature, hense we need stamina for running after prey etc. Which is why even when someone does increase the mass of their legs it looks kinda daft, to go into your pull up questions, well pull ups are one of the hardest exersices to perform and also something women have an advantage in.
This is as the pull up requires you to raise your entire body weight with just one muscle group (the latissimus dorsi)
The problem here is the only real way to train this group effectivly is with pull ups? So it's kind of a catch 22 situation, and being the egotistical creatures us men are, we try something in the gym and when we can't achieve the desired results we tend to change to something else rather than persevre in the face of others.
As for why women have the advantage, well it all comes down to body mass, simply put on the whole women weigh less, therfore have less to lift, and as they tend to not be affected so much by fear of humility then they are happier to train through the difficulty.
I can't remember the exact figure, but on adverage at least 60% of men are unable to perform 3 or more correct full pull ups, so tell your partner he's not alone.

Originally posted by feygan

This is as the pull up requires you to raise your entire body weight with just one muscle group (the latissimus dorsi)
The problem here is the only real way to train this group effectivly is with pull ups? So it's kind of a catch 22 situation, and being the egotistical creatures us men are, we try something in the gym and when we can't achieve the desired results we tend to change to something else rather than persevre in the face of others.

Try seated rows on the cable machine if you want to work your lats.
Or bentover pulls, deadlifts, pulldowns, etc etc...
Being the resourceful creatures we women are, we'll find what works in the most efficient way possible.
(deadlifts are my alltime absolute favorite...hits everything from your traps to your a$$.)

-B.

Very true their are other ways to train the lats, but unless you perform pull ups your'll never fully incorporate all the areas of the lats needed to give all round strength. The military realise this, which is why it has been one of the mainstay exersises in many military forces for a long time, and will remain so.

Yes William I had Bob88 remove it because of the lack of intelligence in this thread.

Valhall and DR felt that it was necessary to argue the author not the thread and once I fell into their little childish trap it was too late to really "repair" it so I had it removed completely.

If anyone else can argue it reasonably be my guest.

For anyone just coming into it, my first post was mainly just an overview of a website that was a well cited discussion of the short-commings of the majority of women physically. And how women should not be in the military because almost all can not pass the requirements a man can.

As i said earlier, the only aspect a woman falls short of her male counter parts is the ability to generate pure muscle mass. But what you are forgetting is if you look at some of the worlds top special forces then you'll find they a generally smaller than many of their normal troop counterparts. For example If you looks at special forces hereford then on adverage they are around 150lbs, which when you consider they are accepted as possibly the best fighting force in the world, isn't very big.
So when you look at it that way, the issue of women being unable to lift very large loads is irrelavent, as any experienced military personal will tell you, you can have all the strength in the world but without stamina your as good as dead.

I'd agree most of the world's special forces are smaller, but the reason given usually is "smaller targets". The special forces are taken from the Regulars, not just "recruited" so they'd have to pass the basics first....which is the primary argument here.

Also I don't doubt the worth of Special Forces in Peace-time and in clandestine opperations, but over-all they do not number in the necessity of the Armies and Navies.

Although special forces may not be useful during most peace time operations... Keep in mind the following..


"Getting caught with your pants down"

I'll just go ahead and shoot out my view point on the matter. I beleive it is everyones duty (who are able) to serve their country in one way or another. Today's generations have a large debt to pay to the hundreds of thousands who fought our World Wars etc etc.. If a woman wants to serve her country, and is able... Even if it's just cooking some grunts some food. More power to her and God Bless her.

Hehe "smaller targets" I don't know who told you that but their a little off. Special forces are smaller for a number of reasons.
1.A smaller bodies needs less calories to support, therfore carrying less resources.
2.As a smaller person, you can keep up strenuous activity longer as you have more red msucle fibres than white.
3.Smaller soldiers look more like normal people, and so blend into areas easier.

AS for having to get through a basic entrance, yeah your totally right. However you must remember that basic fitness tests are just that. Basic. Their meant to be fairly easy, as not all jobs in the armed forces require masses of strength. (ie military priests, office clerks, medics etc)
So taking this into account you have to allow for the fact that if someone wishes to go onto a unit that is physically demanding, take for instance paratroopers, then you have to pass a much tougher testing process from within the military. So if a woman can get through this who are we to say she isn't capable? As she has already proved herself to be so.
So yeah sure women are weaker on the whole than us, and if they can't hack the pace in the military then i agree, throw them out. But if they can show that they can perform the duties of their unit, then we should give them the same respect as their male counterparts.

Agreed, Most women who enter into the armed forces are assigned support rolls (if not all) the modern military does not allowed women to be in a front line combat situation. Key example, Linch. She was in supply but unfortuantly got ambushed. I beleive in women in the military, I dont beleive in women getting shot up on the front lines.

Personally i don't see a problem with them in front line units, At the end of the day war effects everyone in it's own way. If a woman can stand up to being shot at etc, then give her a weapon and send her in I say. When placed in a conflict situation, gender has no bearing on how someone will react, in fact you can only hope that the training that person recieved takes over, as thats what keeps soldiers alive. I'm sure if anyone here has been in a conflict situation will tell you, when the crap it's the fan, you lose yourself and the training kicks in. At that time it doesn't matter if your male, female, or even some green alien.

Good point, I have to agree. Plus, If i were on the front lines fighting along side a women who cussed 3 times a smuch as I every time she shot someone.. Id feel empowered.. (and maybe a little horny)

Originally posted by ThermoNuke
Good point, I have to agree. Plus, If i were on the front lines fighting along side a women who cussed 3 times a smuch as I every time she shot someone.. Id feel empowered.. (and maybe a little horny)

=======================================
Fantastic,

Finally someone gets the point. Congratulations, it has nothing to do with sterngth anyone can pull a trigger.
It's primal to kill. It is also primal to engage in other neccessities under stress, the inevitable will occur when a man and woman are in a FOX HOLE together. Get the picture. This results in lack of focus. This is why 51 percent of the female fighting force is pregnant in Iraq. In 6 to 9 months only half the force will be able to fight unless there are mass abortions. Can you see now why women should not engage in warfare. Half our military is comprimised, why do you think the North Koreans are moving south? They know it too. Wake up!

TUT

I agree with your point, and, yes, I think thermo brought it home. I have been very careful to say that there are certain positions that women should be considered equal for in the military, and others that they should not. I think this very reason right here is the singular reason that the fighting line should be men.

Well,

Happy to see your post!
The whole thread is unimportant at this point. I belive the military is awake now as well as proponents of exremefeminism.
What is important now is the US does not have a land Army
capable of long term engagement lasting more than 6 months. Sounds like draft time.
There are many threads that could be spawned from this simple fact that should have been known by military shrinks long ago.
I mean it is incredible, we bounce lethal weapons off the ionsphere, view the universe and its inception thru Hubble, and no one realized if you put a man and a woman in a hole together under duress they would have to do it one more time just in case. I refuse to belive I am the only man on the planet that saw this coming. LOL
The Battlefield is not the Baracks!!!!!!!!!!!

TUT TUT