100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Male vs Female | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
RebelArcher
on
Mon 06/01/15 08:44 AM
|
|
Double post, my apologies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
2OLD2MESSAROUND
on
Mon 06/01/15 09:09 AM
|
|
Isaac_Dede stated >>> Being in the military for 8 years, on a co-ed ship with 60+ women from EXPERIENCE only about 2 of them could do the job to its FULL extent...granted some occupations are less-physical but in the military one MUST be able to do things in EMERGENCY situations...on our ship we had an incident where it just so happened that the emergency medical team was ALL female on the same watch, a shipmate went down during a difficult operation....the women(stretcher bearer team) could NOT lift the guy...they were the ones trained in how to PROPERLY take-care of an injured body...but they COULDN'T physically do the job....so guess what happened? the men had to do their job FOR THEM.....this happens ALL TO OFTEN in the military... This happens in any given military medical unit - regardless of gender {even in private life}; emergency personnel respond but not fully equipped to handle the bulk/size of human in dire need. One profound reason that the 'WOMEN' asked for and received permission to be trained to bear arms was that they were being sent to the front lines despite the 'Powers That Be' telling all the media that there were NO FEMALE SERVICE PEOPLE PUT IN HARMS WAY during the war! About Faces of the Fallen February 2013 update: Due to a technical issue, a number of the home states listed for service members appeared incorrectly in this database. Those entries have since been corrected. Faces of the Fallen is a collection of information about each U.S. service member who has died as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom. ************************************ Theater Iraq = 4,486 Afghanistan = 2,354 Sex =6,676 M Sex = 160 F http://apps.washingtonpost.com/national/fallen/ From the era of the days of our ancestors and those brave pioneer women - the women that helped run ammunition behind the enemy lines - supported the home front - fed the starving and nursed the wounded from both sides of the civil war; women have been there! And this from 'TIME' magazine>>> As the nation debates what it will mean for women to participate in combat, it is easy to lose sight of some basic truths: that in our two most recent wars, over 280,000 women have served in combat zones in which there is very little distinction between front lines and rear support, and they have served with distinction. As Army Sergeant First Class Gwendolyn-Lorene Lawrence, who served in Bosnia in 1996, said, “The military was an opportunity. The Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines - ��all the branches would say, '��Okay, women, prove your point. Prove you'��re citizens.'�� We shot that. We went over and beyond to say, '��Here we are. We are citizens. We deserve the right to defend our country in whatever capacity we can.'�� As recently as 1982, the Equal Rights Amendment came within a hair'��s breadth of passing' ��and then failed because opponents raised the specter of women in combat. With Defense Secretary Panetta'��s announcement, we have come a giant step closer for American women to become full citizens in every sense of the word. http://nation.time.com/2013/01/29/women-in-combat-listening-to-those-who-have-been-there/ I remember this being a huge argument when we were fighting for the right to vote at 18 yrs old; if you were going to send only our young men into a war zone then why couldn't those of us women that wanted to be armed be taught to do the same thing? Granted it was coming from more of the rural FFA/Farm girls then any of the city young women but there was a voice to be heard; killing off the young men of a generation just seemed really asinine and insane when we wanted to fight for our country too! But were told to put on a dress and join the 'Waves/Wacs' or the clerical pool or become a nurse! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just seemed really asinine What you may want and what's best for unit cohesiveness and mission accomplishment are two very different things..... and insane when we wanted to fight for our country too! But, maybe a compromise is separate female combat units....staffed based on their own standards and missioned out based on their effectiveness. Its a stretch though. Why fix what aint broken? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about the 'SELECTIVE SERVICE/DRAFT'...
 if you want me to relocate this question I will gladly do so; just thought it fit within this thread.  That egalitarian agenda, like so many other progressive agendas, may produce an unintended consequence. The 1981 Rostker v. Goldberg Supreme Court case exempted women from being part of the nation’s Selective Service System. America no longer drafts civilians into the military, but as Donnelly notes, the elimination of such combat exemptions will involve civilian women registering with Selective Service. She then makes a recommendation, not only anathema to the Obama administration, but one that only three days later was ultimately ignored. “Congress, which represents the American people, should not be shut out of this decision-making process,” she wrote. If the draft is re-instated, one wonders how the American public will take to having their daughters every bit as vulnerable as their sons to forcible conscription. A rising tide of Islamist terror in the Middle East and now in Africa could provide the answer. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obama-ignores- deadly-risks-to-women-in-combat/ What do you feel about our government opening this up to 'ALL' 18yr olds regardless of gender? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
2OLD2MESSAROUND
on
Mon 06/01/15 09:37 AM
|
|
2old2 stated >>> just seemed really asinine and insane when we wanted to fight for our country too! RebelArcher stated >>> What you may want and what's best for unit cohesiveness and mission accomplishment are two very different things..... But, maybe a compromise is separate female combat units....staffed based on their own standards and missioned out based on their effectiveness. Its a stretch though. Why fix what aint broken? Granted you do have an point; unfortunately for all those National Guard units deployed to Iraq and the number of semi drivers that were sent over; they might not have been the most fit units available {as any National Guard unit isn't} and their equipment was questionable and antiquated too... Several of the units that I was aware of from my KS region had female or male drivers that were very slim built humans: hefting a back pack of 102# plus into a arid desert climate that they weren't prepared for was --- Well, shockingly bizarre to say the least! Stories about those supply tankers breaking down in those convoys and sitting around like ducks at a carnival shooting contest even gave me nightmares and I didn't live it! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But, maybe a compromise is separate female combat units....staffed based on their own standards and missioned out based on their effectiveness. Its a stretch though. Why fix what aint broken? While I don't see a future for women in a Marine Corps ground unit, I can honestly see all-woman units performing flanking maneuvers, pincers, anvil to hammers, defense of a longbow maneuver. Maybe even taking the horns in a buffalo run. Those kinds of maneuvers would work because they rely on firepower being efficiently laid down from specific points. And women can definitely shoot, no doubt about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
driftingLuke
on
Mon 06/01/15 04:08 PM
|
|
But, maybe a compromise is separate female combat units....staffed based on their own standards and missioned out based on their effectiveness. Its a stretch though. Why fix what aint broken? While I don't see a future for women in a Marine Corps ground unit, I can honestly see all-woman units performing flanking maneuvers, pincers, anvil to hammers (sorry, but Hammer to Anvil isn't happening with an all female crew. I Just don't think you'd have enough hammer to drive them to the anvil), defense of a longbow maneuver. Maybe even taking the horns in a buffalo run. Those kinds of maneuvers would work because they rely on firepower being efficiently laid down from specific points. And women can definitely shoot, no doubt about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With this military thing, the problem is that males think they can define the limits of females, so that needs to stop because it's really stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With this military thing, the problem is that males think they can define the limits of females, so that needs to stop because it's really stupid. "" The Marine Corps just finished research to see if female officers could successfully complete its rigorous Infantry Officer Course. A IOC diploma is a must to earn the designation of infantry officer. Of 29 women who tried, none graduated; only four made it through the first day’s combat endurance test."" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This argument is really getting old. The military today does not need to discriminate against women for biological reasons since that is no longer the driving factor on how decent a soldier will perform in combat. Like technology has changed the way wars are fought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point 1) The rigorous physical standards put in place by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are there not to discriminate against any particular group (consider, for example, that 99 out of 100 males who attempt to complete the Marine training also wash out), but rather to make sure that the soldiers who become Army, Marines, etc, can survive the most dangerous combat situations in the world, where you may be called upon to perform any kind of physical action, from endurance hiking across the desert for days, to climbing jungle vines while taking fire from snipers.
Lowering these standards to accommodate less ability would, I think, only lead to getting more soldiers killed. That's not good for the soldier or the objective they were supposed to accomplish. Point 2) Thought proposal: Maybe the problem in letting females in full-combat situations isn't down to the government or "The Man" saying "no". Maybe it's down to the soldiers and officers in those situations - the same ones who stand to be accused of sexual harassment, rape, and humiliating female soldiers. If all these "underreported sexual harassment" cases are even partially true, then it's a dangerous situation for female soldiers from their own side. What do the soldiers in the trenches think about having female soldiers next to them? Maybe it's the same soldiers who think that women shouldn't be in the military at all, or those who are religiously or culturally motivated to think of women as staying at home, that commit these crimes. Call me old-fashioned, but I think you should at least be able to trust your own side. I keep seeing teams in online gaming, where individual members are stupid trolls who delight in betraying their own side. I don't want that kind of person next to me in a combat situation. Point 3) Estelle, are you making the case that women should be allowed to join the military, so long as they stay back at base and keep the home drones flying? That merely seems like a change of venue, not a change of occupation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
driftingLuke
on
Tue 06/02/15 06:35 PM
|
|
So by NOT lowering their standards the military is discriminating? I'd think just the opposite, by lowering their standards to accommodate women would be the epitome of discrimination. "Oh, you poor things can't do this? Here ya' go, we'll make it easier so you'll think you can." How discriminatory and condescending is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
driftingLuke
on
Tue 06/02/15 06:50 PM
|
|
This argument is really getting old. The military today does not need to discriminate against women for biological reasons since that is no longer the driving factor on how decent a soldier will perform in combat. Like technology has changed the way wars are fought. You ever been to Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan? Brute force is EXACTLY how these animals fight war. We have air strikes, sure, but air strikes can't hold territory. They can take it temporarily, but it takes boots on the ground to hold it. It is not discrimination to require a female to perform equally to a male. To adjust the standards, that's where the discrimination is. edited to add: I do understand a single female Navy officer recently successfully graduated BUDS. My hat's off to her. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So by NOT lowering their standards the military is discriminating? I'd think just the opposite, by lowering their standards to accommodate women would be the epitome of discrimination. "Oh, you poor things can't do this? Here ya' go, we'll make it easier so you'll think you can." How discriminatory and condescending is that? AMEN I want no woman to wear a lavendar purple heart because some idiot put her in a situation she was neither trained or physically capable of surviving. I do think we have to realize that not every soldier of value has to be Rambo but in special forces/combat forces you compromise the soldier you compromise the mission. Why I do not recommend sending any soldier into combat that needs glasses or prosthetics to complete the mission. What scares me is how are we going to find physically proficient soldiers if the majority of the population is bordering on obesity, can't comprehend basic first aid, and doesn't have the education, cognitive ability, to read/retain even training manuals that are geared for eight graders, and the majority can't pass a simple drug test? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Argued about this issue for days on my bodybuilding site. I will say same thing I said there:open doors and let any woman try
If she does not pass the training then so be it. same standards for all |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 MAKE LOVE NOT WAR!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MAKE LOVE NOT WAR! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
2OLD2MESSAROUND
on
Wed 06/03/15 08:48 AM
|
|
Tmommy stated >>> Argued about this issue for days on my bodybuilding site. I will say same thing I said there:open doors and let any woman try If she does not pass the training then so be it. same standards for all I've been arguing this issue for years and even more precisely since GWB and his 'WAR PAC' {think tank} decided to send our Home Guard Units {national guard} over to fight on a foreign soil! Although the military reserve component’s responsibilities and duties have increased since 2001, a March 2007 report by the congressionally chartered independent Commission on the National Guard and Reserves has found that many Army and Air National Guard units stationed in the United States are rated"��not ready."�� That rating is based primarily on current military equipment shortages and concerns for long-term operational reserve capacity. According to the report, these domestic equipment shortfall and reserve capacity issues are attributed, in part, to the large deployment of National Guard personnel (currently more than 28,000) and equipment deployed in what the Bush Administration terms the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). In May 2006, more than 6,000 National Guard personnel were authorized to be sent to the southern border region of the United States to temporarily assist in interdicting illegal aliens. As of January 8, 2008, 2,736 National Guard forces were deployed for this border security operation (Operation Jump Start). This report presents statistical information on the National Guard’s federal role in defense and security, including its deployments in support of GWOT, OIF, and Operation Jump Start. Table 2. Current Major National Guard Deployments (as of 1/02/08) In Iraq -�� Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) 11,545 Army National Guard 10,583 Air National Guard 962 In Afghanistan -�� Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) 3,971 Army National Guard 3,284 Air National Guard 687 In the United States - Operation Jump Start (OJS) as of 1/04/08 2,736 Army National Guard 2,289 Air National Guard 447 Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Legislative Affairs; January 2, 2008; and National Guard Bureau, Public Affairs, January 11, 2008. fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22451.pdf deployed once - deployed again - deployed 3rd time; these units were used and abused well beyond their purpose as our 'HOME GUARD' and the women that were within those units...well they were just part of the 'UNIT' and sent along! 139 came home in a body bag...they put in their time for this country! The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated how much the roles of women in the U.S. military have expanded. During a decade'��s worth of conflict, more than 283,000 women were deployed to the two countries. Hundreds of them served in harm'��s way, according to casualty figures. More than 800 female service members have been wounded in either Afghanistan or Iraq, and at least 139 have died from combat- and non-combat-related incidents. Of these, 110 died as a result of serving in Iraq, however the last thirteen have all died in Afghanistan. Although the prohibition against women serving in combat units was lifted in 1994, it has been U.S. policy to exclude women from ground combat units. However, in Afghanistan and Iraq, women have served as foot soldiers during door-to-door operations and they have been involved in convoy escort missions. Most female soldiers who have lost their lives during the last ten years have been the victims of '��hostile' action. The most recent female soldier to be killed in Afghanistan was 21-year-old Army Specialist Mikayla Bragg, who was shot to death while in a guard tower in eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border on December 21. Her family said that she joined the Army to earn money and pay for college. About 20,000 women are still serving, mostly in Afghanistan. http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/139-female-soldiers-have-died-in-iraq-and-afghanistan?news=844316 Worrying about a 'FEMALE SOLDIERS' readiness in todays military; pffft - people...your only about 12 years too late! They were called up and they deployed and they did their jobs and some came home with missing body parts and some came home in body bags --- what more do they have to PROVE TO YOU? BTW - of those 283,000 female recruits; did anyone hear of any of those females going AWOL? Hmmmm, now that's something to think about! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MAKE LOVE NOT WAR!  It was either that or "Shoot D**ks NOT Chicks!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With this military thing, the problem is that males think they can define the limits of females, so that needs to stop because it's really stupid. doesnt society define that in civilian life when its declared that 'a woman is no match for a man' ? |
|
|
|
|
