Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should Women Be Able to Join The Armed Forces?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
That doesn't proove anything. Not everyones the same. I am pretty sure i guy would handle it better.




posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Sexist remark. There is a reason women are nurses........................I have seen plenty of guys pass out at the sight of blood. It is all realitive.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
You need a lot of strength to carry one of those babies around with you all day.


You said it right there
Have you ever carried a real baby around all day?? Little ones need extra support that cancels out their lighter weight. Older ones are freakin heavy, and most of the time they are fighting to get down. Women are plenty strong enough to tote a gun and all the other stuff soldiers pack. Read up on US history. Who the heck was out there plowing fields, bucking hay, wrassling livestock, building cabins, etc. either right along with their men, or alone when the men got killed or went off hunting.

Women are as strong as they are trained to be. In a book called the Frailty Myth, the author found studies that showed if girls were taught to throw a baseball from the same age that boys are, they develop just a strong a throw. When they tested both genders on their non-dominant arm, the percentage of weakness was the same. When they trained both genders to throw with their weak arms, they both strengthened at the same rate. I don't have the book with me, or I'd quote the source of that study. The book itself was a real eye-opener as to just how tough women are if no one is there to tell them to be girly instead.

It's all about training.

--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   
During many conflicts in Asia, women fought on the front lines. The customs and beliefs of the community allowed for it- women had to fight in order to win battles.
Our American beliefs and customs are towards protecting women and children (well many of us). I believe that American men in battle would be more inclined to protect/save/rescue a woman than they would a man.
For that reason alone, I believe that we as a society should not allow women on the front line.
No need to get to involved with the strength issue, reaction speeds, facilities, uniforms, .... we are not ready for it yet.
Remember the POW rescue in Iraq, it was celebrated over an injured woman but there were others.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Women are the nurturers in our society (the members of ATS notwithstanding
)


LOL, that comment made me laugh


As a woman I would never want to join the armed forces in a million years, but if another woman wants to join and serve her country - more power to her! Who's to say she shouldn't be able to?

As far as being a "distraction", who's fault is that?



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Sexist remark. There is a reason women are nurses........................I have seen plenty of guys pass out at the sight of blood. It is all realitive.


Hehe...am studying to be a nurse, yesterday in anatomy we disected a sheep's brain, my partner a male, had to excuse himself b/c he felt sick.

To be fair I know plenty of women who aren't able to contain themselves at the sight of blood as well.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Yeah i doubt when people are trying to kill you , your gonna check out some chicks REar. IF it was that easy , all you would have to do is hire a bunch of strippers and give them guns. Or bombs in their breast implants. Okay sorry i ranted a bit their. But CHicks in combat boots is kinda hot.

[Edited on 23-11-2004 by bordnlazy]

[Edited on 23-11-2004 by bordnlazy]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lecky


As far as being a "distraction", who's fault is that?


You have a point there
One of the reasons Muslim women are told to wear a veil is because they distract men. Shouldn't the men be the ones responsible for being easily distracted? Under the Taliban, women are told they can't even wear shoes with hard heels, because the men don't even want to hear them walk.

Reminds me of Bugs Bunny cartoons where he dresses up like a female and distracts Elmer from hunting him. Never fails


--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saerlaith
You have a point there
One of the reasons Muslim women are told to wear a veil is because they distract men. Shouldn't the men be the ones responsible for being easily distracted? Under the Taliban, women are told they can't even wear shoes with hard heels, because the men don't even want to hear them walk.


Yeah, I mean you guys aren't giving yourselves much credit...or the "seduce and destroy" methods that were described above by borednlazy aren't being utilized nearly enough when it comes to war.


[edit on 11/23/2004 by Lecky]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
So should women be able to join the armed forces? They are prooven (not being sexist) to be not as physically strong as men. So what restrictions should they have then? If any? Or should they be exactly equal to men?

I am undiecided as yet. I can see the problems with having women serving on the front line so to speak.

Jim



i was at AF BMT (basic training) and yes there are women recruits. there are women recruits. there are women recruits in all branches. Women are better in some areas than men, like being fighter pilots. yes there are women fighter pilots in the USAF

oh! women arent allowed on the front lines. go to the army web site, all the combat armns MOS's are closed to women.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Our societal views are such that a man would protect a woman IF he could.

We are not ready for this yet, in the future there may be a need for it, BUT NOT YET!



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by rbailey7160
When our men are in a combat situation, it would be distracting for a male if a woman was in his platoon.

Well, like, how? What, he's going to be underfire and think, man, Sgt Hendricks sure looks hot when she's firing that automatic rifle. Actually, she /does/ look kinda hot. And why doesn't that apply to other sections of the military where its equally important that the soldier not get 'distracted'?

I'd rather not have a woman in combat with me if I were a man.

I'd rather have the best person for the job. I have no doubt that sometimes that is going to be a woman.


Men are more physically stronger as women are the weaker of the two and in hand to hand combat, a man will win.

Thats complete tripe. I know several women that can probably kick my butt. Blanket statements like that are pointless.

saerlaith
On a side note, in ancient Greece there was a battalion (or some such term) of male gay couples.

The greek stance on this sort of thing varied city state by city state. I know that there were some that encouraged it, others that discouraged it.

aleita
Women will never be able to match the physical stength of men, by design

I am shocked to see this many people repeating this. Women are generally weaker than men because they don't have male muscle density horomones like testosterone. But its irrelevant, because most soldiers aren't even encouraged to undergo strenght trainging, which is the only time that that difference really matters.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Before I say anything, I'm a guy just to get that out of the way. So long as a women can perform the same as a man, which many can do, why not let them fight. Some women can fight better then men. During a combat situtation men are under control of adreniline instead of what ever hormone tells us to look at women in naughty ways. Trust me I've been in the middle of a competitive soccer game and I can look at a girl and I don't give a care if they're a girl, to me they are still an opponent. Competition or fighting has the effect of cancelling out all other emotions and though. So there is no distraction. As for women not giving themselves credit, I have a few theories. First is that lot's of girls say too many muscles don't look good on a women, my second theory is that some are traditionalist like lot's of men.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I heard that women are not able to be fighter pilots because the g-forces have made some womens' fallopian tubes burst. Is this true?



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Well if this is true then thats one reason to keep women from flying fighters. Unless some kind of test can show if the tubes would burst on an individual basis.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Joan of Arc led armies of men in battle and managed to drive the English out of France.

If women want to go to battle, why not ... but I bet they would be in the minority. And its not as if they would be all tarted up in mini skirts and heels to be a distraction to the men!



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Throughout time women have proven themselves capable combat soldiers.

Although not as strong on the average as a man they can be every bit as deadly, if you don't believe me try to hurt some 5'2" lb womans kid and see how fast she is in your face.

But being the Southern Gentleman that I am I don't want them on the battlefield. Its is not THEIR performance that would be lacking but their presence would disrupt the men around thems performance. To many would be, like myself, conditioned to protect them and that would lower your effectiveness.

Before yall hang me for being a chauvinist I cant help it, its how I was raised



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 02:26 AM
link   
If a woman wants to go to battle, and if she has all the right attributes and capabilities for the job, then why shouldn't she be allowed? What makes you so sure she would be a hindrance or disruption, how do you know she wouldn't be an inspiration? Again, back to Joan, if it wasn't for her the English would not have been driven out of France back then in 1429/30.

Myself, I wouldn't be caught dead on a battlefield, but if a person, be they male or female, has a 'calling', well then ...


[edit on 24-11-2004 by c_au]



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saerlaith
You said it right there
Have you ever carried a real baby around all day?? Little ones need extra support that cancels out their lighter weight. Older ones are freakin heavy, and most of the time they are fighting to get down. Women are plenty strong enough to tote a gun and all the other stuff soldiers pack.


Well, men don't have to get pregnent, but when we get kidney stones I've heard it's as bad, if not worse than child birth. My old Japanese teacher had them, he stll came to school most of the time. He was dozed out on pain-killers though. I know that women aren't just frail little powder puffs, but factually men are much stronger. Do you know how much those packs weigh? My uncle is/was a green beret, and I know that he had to do some TRAINING with, if I'm not mistaken, packs that weigh towards 80-pounds. Imagine that plus a pretty heavy gun trotting miles and miles through the desert or forest. It wouldn't be an easy thing to do, even for the strongest of people.


Read up on US history. Who the heck was out there plowing fields, bucking hay, wrassling livestock, building cabins, etc. either right along with their men, or alone when the men got killed or went off hunting.


See, this one always gets me. Yeah women were doing these things when the men were gone, but who was doing them the other 90% of their lives when the men were home? Is it so amazing that for a few years, women did the work that men usually did for their whole lives? Come on, put yourselves above that one ladies.

I never doubted that women can plow fields, buck hay, etc. It's harder for them to do it than men though.


Women are as strong as they are trained to be. In a book called the Frailty Myth, the author found studies that showed if girls were taught to throw a baseball from the same age that boys are, they develop just a strong a throw. When they tested both genders on their non-dominant arm, the percentage of weakness was the same. When they trained both genders to throw with their weak arms, they both strengthened at the same rate. I don't have the book with me, or I'd quote the source of that study. The book itself was a real eye-opener as to just how tough women are if no one is there to tell them to be girly instead.

It's all about training.


This would be pretty cool, but you can't just ignore biology. Men and women are equally strong; however, that all changes when the hormones kick in. Men get about 3-times the muscle mass that women get. Many people try to argue that there are strong women. Yes, there are strong women. I know that. I'm sure there are women that are stronger than me (I mean the kind that don't take muscle supliments and testosterone pills.) This doesn't change the fact that the majority of men are stronger than the majority of women.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
But being the Southern Gentleman that I am I don't want them on the battlefield. Its is not THEIR performance that would be lacking but their presence would disrupt the men around thems performance. To many would be, like myself, conditioned to protect them and that would lower your effectiveness.

have to agree with amuk here.
though i aint from america i have to agree with ya amuk.
i mean you see a lassie even getting threatned and you jump in.
women may not be strong but they are better at doing stuff to correctly.
exsample is in canoeing/kayacking.
women havent got the upper body strength as men do but they are a hell of a lot better at canoeing/kayacking than men wil be.
because since men can get away with it useing pure strength , women practice and practice and are much better at style.
proven fact.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join