Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/10/12 06:48 PM, DickChick wrote:

At 12/10/12 10:52 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Sniper roles are considerably different than the combat roles. being discussed. When mentioning serving "in combat" the expectancy is that you will get shot at.

Are you seriously suggesting that snipers don't get shot at?

Nearly 800,000 women fought for the Soviets in WWII and almost a fourth of them were decorated. Not all of them were snipers. Regardless of what studies say there's no indication that women haven't made good soldiers in reality.

Do you read what you write? Regardless of what studies show there is no indication? Ten million soviet soldiers dead and you want us to use them as an example? You want to put lives at risk of not just the women who would serve but everyone in that unit because there are examples of it being possible?

I'm sorry the Soviet army did not value life like our modern military does.

At 12/11/12 03:39 AM, DickChick wrote:

At 12/11/12 03:36 AM, DickChick wrote: Yes, regardless of what the studies posted earlier in this thread might show in practice women have made just as good soldiers as men.

I realize how fucked up the wording is there but you should get my point (real life examples > your study).

Basically you are stating one of the worlds most wasteful (in terms of human life) armies did it better then almost every major modern military at the time?
Almost no modern military employs mixed units in combat

"In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948. The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines was due less to the performance of female soldiers, and more due to the behavior of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression, severely degrading the unit's combat effectiveness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat#Primary_issues
I'm not sure if your the kind to dismiss wiki BUT this is coming right from a book with those real life examples you love.

No you misunderstand. Just because they weren't barred for these reasons doesn't mean the reason doesn't exist. Numerous studies and basic understanding of the human body show that the female bone structure is less dense. And women are generally less physically capable then men.

Now pair that with my previous post. So more likely to be injured, men respond uncontrollably in response to women becoming injured.

I'm willing to bet we'll have some major problems when women start serving in subs here in the coming year as well. We've seen the issues recently in other countries. And pregnant in combat units isn't realistic either.

Equality is important when equality can exist. Basic hormonal responses doesn't seem to allow mixed units to function well. All women units may be the only realistic solution. Sadly..

"Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers. In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered. Similarly, Iraqi and Afghan civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers."

Culturally they don't respect women enough to surrender to them. More chances at losing our brave soldiers.

I'm off to bed now, goodnight.

At 12/11/12 04:28 AM, Nithael wrote: Well whilst it is a biological fact that men are generally built to withstand more physical punishment than women, I dont see how that would affect how well they could do their job in the field. What I mean is, men have an easier time building physical strength and have an innately larger edurance than females, but it doesnt change the fact that what makes a soldier is the will to protect and lay down your life to accomplish your objective. You dont have to have a penis to have the heart of a soldier.

And you haven't read the responses to the thread have you? It isn't just that mixed units AT least don't work. And I'm supposed to be asleep now ><

More likely to be injured not just unable to withstand the physical punishment by the way. And if you get injured you aren't just endangering yourself.

You say it as if womans bones are made of butter, but im certain if you shoot a man in one of his many bones, its still gunna fucking hurt and it will still break or be damaged like a womans bone so whats your point?

Do men respond uncontrollably or do SOLDIERS respond uncontrollably? Generally speaking, people, not soldiers, respond badly too stressful sitatuions like screaming, explosions and what ever else but does the same apply to males and females with military training?

So what? are our soldiers more traumitised by the screaming fleeing woman in afghanistan THAN the actual fucking combat? because too me it sounds like your exagerating.

And the middle east or islamic soldiers is just an exception, it doesnt have too apply to combat scenarios in all situations. Aslong as there thousands of meters away, how the hell are the taliban going differentiate between bullets fired by males or bullets fired by females? who cares, their being shot at and will most likely run or die so mission acomplished.

I feel its just better to have women in the military who pass basic training over men who dont.

At 12/11/12 08:22 AM, MrPercie wrote: You say it as if womans bones are made of butter, but im certain if you shoot a man in one of his many bones, its still gunna fucking hurt and it will still break or be damaged like a womans bone so whats your point?

Do men respond uncontrollably or do SOLDIERS respond uncontrollably? Generally speaking, people, not soldiers, respond badly too stressful sitatuions like screaming, explosions and what ever else but does the same apply to males and females with military training?

So what? are our soldiers more traumitised by the screaming fleeing woman in afghanistan THAN the actual fucking combat? because too me it sounds like your exagerating.

And the middle east or islamic soldiers is just an exception, it doesnt have too apply to combat scenarios in all situations. Aslong as there thousands of meters away, how the hell are the taliban going differentiate between bullets fired by males or bullets fired by females? who cares, their being shot at and will most likely run or die so mission acomplished.

I feel its just better to have women in the military who pass basic training over men who dont.

I like how you ignore people who had studied and witnessed it. I hope you don't honestly thinking bullets are the only way to break bones

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12830370

And soldiers are people by the way.
And if you want women who pass training as I've said a half dozen times already. The standards for women will need to be brought up that of men.

Flattering or not it doesn't change the fact that they are easily identifiable.

At 12/11/12 10:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Those are MAX ranges. Most combat is well within those distances, and often comes as close as a matter of feet. If you think a woman will not be recognized as a woman during combat, you're just wrong.

Well hello mr "I can tell a woman from a man even if they are wearing the exact same clothing, helmet, glasses and have had their hair cut"

im pretty sure it would be the voice that gives it away more than the actual sight of them.

And I still havent been given any statistics or evidence of female SOLDIERS responding worse than males soldiers in combat situations. And i have not been given any reason Why that just because women have smaller bones than men that somehow a woman who is more than strong enough to be a soldier is less preferable than a male who isnt. What are their legs going to shatter from all that equipment?

Biggest threat to our military, not the bullets being fired at them, its the women.

At 12/11/12 04:44 PM, MrPercie wrote:

At 12/11/12 10:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Those are MAX ranges. Most combat is well within those distances, and often comes as close as a matter of feet. If you think a woman will not be recognized as a woman during combat, you're just wrong.

Well hello mr "I can tell a woman from a man even if they are wearing the exact same clothing, helmet, glasses and have had their hair cut"

im pretty sure it would be the voice that gives it away more than the actual sight of them.

And I still havent been given any statistics or evidence of female SOLDIERS responding worse than males soldiers in combat situations. And i have not been given any reason Why that just because women have smaller bones than men that somehow a woman who is more than strong enough to be a soldier is less preferable than a male who isnt. What are their legs going to shatter from all that equipment?

Biggest threat to our military, not the bullets being fired at them, its the women.

Then you haven't been reading the thread very closely have you?

Because we've discussed that irrational and uncontrollable actions that men seem to have when women are injured.

The increased risk of injury.

The chemical differences of the dominant hormones of the male and female body, and how they affect how people respond.

The need to raise the physical requirements to be the same level as men. And how few would be able to pass those standards.

And more...

It isn't cultural so much as hormonal

So I guess yo understand how to discipline soldiers better then the worlds strongest armies? Please get to work.

The problem is how few would qualify in the first place.

You don't understand the basics of the human skeleton if you don't understand women's bones are less dense and at peak density in their life still up to 20% less dense.
Are you being serious by the way? Bone density is directly related to fracture risk. Osteoporosis just happens to be a disease where BMD is reduced increasing risk of fractures. If you can't figure out that lower density means higher risk of fractures...
If gender wasn't an issue then it wouldn't be taken into account when calculating fracture risk would it?

It is an overwhelmingly accurate generalization that I've made sure to make clear is being used in general terms.

I guess you feel you know better than most of the most powerful militaries in the world right?

At 12/11/12 05:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/11/12 05:21 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Then you haven't been reading the thread very closely have you?

You very much missed his point. His point is that when man or woman becomes a trained soldier they do not respond in th same way as a civilian would. There hasn't been ny study showing that trained female soldiers rect to combat any differently than men, or that male soldiers will treat the danger toward their female colleagues different than the same danger toward their male colleagues. We will never really know until we actually get women into combat, and into combat with men.

The need to raise the physical requirements to be the same level as men. And how few would be able to pass those standards.

I already addressed that there is no need to adjust the strength based standards as women's bodies run significantly lighter than men's thus allowing women to perform many of the same actions with less strength. The endurance portion should be adjusted though.

Okay no

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948. The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines was due less to the performance of female soldiers, and more due to the behavior of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression, severely degrading the unit's combat effectiveness.

Real life examples of soldiers behaving differently when women are wounded.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-ar e-not-all-created-equal
Written by a woman with actual experience in the military.

SO basically what your telling me is, Male soldiers who have not been trained to treat women soldiers equal to male soldiers in all situations, didnt treat a female soldier the same as they would have done a male soldier? what a surprise.

We can train our soldiers to not be scared of bullets or bombs which can KILL them but somehow we cant erase the males natural instinct to protect women? I doubt that since im sure its a natural instinct to avoid things that kill you, like bullets or bombs.

To be honest it makes the army have a weakness, what happens when it aint female soldiers but female civilians crying in the street while their under gun fire? are they just going to run out there and get SHOT! maybe if we had spent more time training our soldiers to be prepared for odd situations like, I dont know, seeing a woman in distress, perhaps it wont be all so bad after that.

ANd when I say soldiers arent scared of bullets or bombs, im saying that they able to react to the situation and make decisions where as normal civilians would usually run for the hills or cower in a ditch. But even that isnt always true as im sure some soldiers still react badly when under fire.

At 12/11/12 06:50 PM, MrPercie wrote: SO basically what your telling me is, Male soldiers who have not been trained to treat women soldiers equal to male soldiers in all situations, didnt treat a female soldier the same as they would have done a male soldier? what a surprise.

We can train our soldiers to not be scared of bullets or bombs which can KILL them but somehow we cant erase the males natural instinct to protect women? I doubt that since im sure its a natural instinct to avoid things that kill you, like bullets or bombs.

To be honest it makes the army have a weakness, what happens when it aint female soldiers but female civilians crying in the street while their under gun fire? are they just going to run out there and get SHOT! maybe if we had spent more time training our soldiers to be prepared for odd situations like, I dont know, seeing a woman in distress, perhaps it wont be all so bad after that.

Look If you want to be PC be PC but read the article
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-ar e-not-all-created-equal
Most women who push for women in combat don't have military experiences past or present. And it has nothing to do about training.

You are weakening your own argument throwing your little tantrum here blasting off about things you have shown no indication of understanding.

Soldiers are brothers it is a lot more powerful when your bother steps on a mine and gets his limbs blown off. Do you feel more strongly about your family or about strangers? Sure men have a natural urge to protect women, but this is only intensified when you are as close as family.

Read the article stop putting PC above living.