It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Herman
You need a lot of strength to carry one of those babies around with you all day.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Women are the nurturers in our society (the members of ATS notwithstanding )
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.
Originally posted by Lecky
As far as being a "distraction", who's fault is that?
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.
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.
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.
I'd rather not have a woman in combat with me if I were a man.
Men are more physically stronger as women are the weaker of the two and in hand to hand combat, a man will win.
On a side note, in ancient Greece there was a battalion (or some such term) of male gay couples.
Women will never be able to match the physical stength of men, by design
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.
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.
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.