Of course not, they should be in the kitchen or rearing the children.

Seriously though, if they want to be in the military, then why not?

At 11/8/06 04:50 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/8/06 02:47 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

Women have a higher pain threshhold. But they don't have the endurance, stamina, or agressive attitude that men have. I remember specifically learning this in Military Science.

When men are attacked when they are aware that someone is trying to kill them, they get aggressive and ambitious, when this is mixed with proper training and skill, this makes the best warfighter. Women don't have this instinct, they don't have the adrenaline and testoserone which sufficient enough to be agressive warfighters. They may be able to be just as good at military tactics at the core level, but once the bullets start flying things are different.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'd like to know where you took this course, becuase I'm having extreme doubts about this based on what I've observed. Granted, my experience comes from both female martial artists and members of my family (my mother is at least quarter native american, so this may be a factor). I have fought quite a few women who could kick and punch just as hard as I could, and they were a hell of a lot more aggressive. In fact, the conventional wisdom from the male instructors was not to ever get into a real fight with female martial artists because of how aggressive they tended to be.

As for my family, my mother and I both work at the same school. I once witnessed her take down a 6'5" student, and she looked quite aggressive when she did it. She is only 5'2" On another occasion, a student threw a desk at her. Her response, "Next time you do that, make sure you hit me so we can both get a two week vacation."

My sister is of a similar mind set. She hit a sixty pound heavy bag with a front snap kick and sent it on a full ninety degree arc. She did not pull her leg back. She has not had any martial arts training except for having observed me practicing and having sparred me once or twice. When we thought someone was trying to break into our house, she grabbed her katana and ran down stairs.

Thats ridiculous. It is a fact that men are stronger than women and have the POTENTIONAL to gain strength and to adapt physically faster than women.

Again, this may be due to some genetic component, but my mother used to lift weights. While there is certainly muscle memory involved, she can usually gain a 50% increase in her bicep/tricep circumfrence in about a month.

Besides, the minimum height for the US military isn't very high, but in order to be in a combat-oriented military occupation speciality you must be taller and physically strong enough to carry strenous loads. Women, even if they meet the height requirements, would take a long time to become physically strong enough to carry the massive amount of weight that soldiers/marines do. That is assuming that will ever even become physically capable.

Female fire fighters have to be able to carry the same load as there male counterparts, and they do it. Even if they can't become as strong as men, the can become strong enough. Those that don't make the cut don't go on the front line. It's that simple.

Though that is true to SOME extent. You still need to be physically stronger than your opponent if you are equally matched. And regardless of what stupid people say, women are NOT as physically strong as men except in a few cases. Even after boot camp and basic training, the men will have become exponentially stronger, women's bodies don't adapt, acclimate, and build up as fast as men's bodies do.

I'll readily admit that, but a woman can train to be strong enough on their own should they choose. Once they can meet the requirements, then let fight out in the front.

Some women might become as proficient as men in hand to hand combat, but it would be few and far between and a massive amount of women would not be able to meet the same requirements that men are. They would require special treatment, and once again, there is NO PLACE for special treatment in the military when people's lives are in danger and the consequence of sub-par soldiers and marines far outweighs the politically incorrect yet TRUE idea that women do not make proper combat troops.

I agree that those that can't meet the male standards should not be allowed on the front line. Where I disagree is that women cannot meet those standards, even if it takes extra to get there. As for the hand to hand, if all other things are equal, then yes, strength becomes the deciding factor, but all things are rarely equal. Women are going to have better balance and likely be faster. There is also likely going to be a difference in techniques used out in the field.

Also, I don't care how strong you are, if you can't back it up with speed, it's almost completely useless. Not only will you not be able to effectively defend or attack, but any blow you land will be lacking in power. This also applies to grappling where the person won't be albe to apply techniques as fast as the opponent. This all ignores the fact that most vulnerable areas only require a certain amount of force to break even on strong men, and most children can be trained to hit hard enough to inflict such damage. The same applies for many joint locks, throws, and techniques that rely on the opponents neural-muscular reactions such as the pak sao (slapping hands) trapping techniqe.

I will guarantee you that the average US soldier and marine would out the vast majority of those female IDF members. But incase you didn't know, the Israeli military gives the female soldiers special treatment, they aren't equal to the male IDF soldiers and are kept in seperate combat units so that the special requirements that females have can be addressed.

Depends on what they are trained in. I'm certain that the marines are very well trained, but from what I've been told by a friend who is an MP in the army reserve, their techniques are not very good.

Now quit holding on to your politically correct nonsense and accept the fact. Take a Military Science class and learn it for yourself if you want to be stubborn.

You take a martial arts class and go up against some decent female martial artists. Science can say all it likes until observations go againts its findings.

I don't think the problem is that women are neccesarily weaker than men because that depends on the woman. Some women are just as effective in combat than men. What they may lack in strength that men have hey can easily make up in speed and agility.
What the problem is I feel is when a woman is killed the country's morale actually drops. This is not a sexist comment at all, it's the truth.

What if I told you (hypothetically speaking of course!) that I killed a man. A lot of people would be shocked but not apalled that is it's a bloke. Then what if I told you I killed a woman. Many people would be applled by this. This reminds me of the time when the first British female soldier was killed and it was headline news. Not to mention the fact that when a woman is raped or tortured it causes repulsion amongst the general population.

The fact is that society has this mentality. When there is a disaster its women and children first. A man always pays for dinner not the woman. Since time began it was the male who brought back the food and protected he family but not the woman who stayed behind to feed her/their offspring. Therefore logic suggests that when a woman dies instead of a man, society will be pissed off.

I know by saying his I am making enemies with the vast majority of the feminist movement and it may be a little sexist but I think if a death of a woman will be seen negatively amongst society they should be kept away from the front lines as possible. Or else it may cause a population backlash

Yes, Woman should stay in the kitchen making me dinner and cleaning my shit.

At 11/8/06 01:18 PM, Fire wrote: Yes, Woman should stay in the kitchen making me dinner and cleaning my shit.

That's not what I mean.......... -_-

God, this thread is full of wannabe romantic chivalrists and fucking idiots.

Taking the bullet for the women in war is not chivalry. It's no different than taking a bullet for another man. I'm sure there are money woman out there who would take a bullet for a man, so don't give me this "spare them from the horrors of war" crap. Go hold a door open for a woman with that shit. The argument that women are any less capable fo fighting is garbage. Look at some of the men who join, they aren't the top warriors, yet we let them join. The average woman is more than capable of fighting on the same level as the average man. Women may have smaller builds, but that in no way means they are weaker.

At 11/8/06 08:25 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: In fact, the conventional wisdom from the male instructors was not to ever get into a real fight with female martial artists because of how aggressive they tended to be.

Don't compare sparring with war. When sparring against a man, a woman has something to prove, and will fight more aggressively. In war, you fuck up, you die. The best way to overcome the fear of death is with an adrenaline boost with a testosterone twist. Women just aren't suited for being shot at.

Look at it this way; if you were in charge of a platoon, would you fill its ranks with defficient warriors?

celardoor6 more pics please :)

YES ITS RIGHT
if you have a problem with that
they chose to be in the military NOT YOU they are fighting for what YOU WON'T fight for

As a wise teacher I once had said "Modern women want the Rights of Men, the Privleges of Women, and the Responsibilities of Neither."

If a woman nowadays wants to fight, let her! Women just want to stay at home and vote and have wild sex while men do the fighting. Equal rights should mean equal resonsibilities: They should fight and die with all of the men, if they want to live like them.

All in all i'm in favour of women serving their country if they wish.. I do, however, agree with my governments position in stating that women cannot be apart of certain aspects of the armed forces like the SAS and SBS.

I think women who want to go in the army, should be allowed. However, they're not allowed on the front line, which is pretty understandable.
I used to want to be in the army, but I gave up on that when I found out I couldnt go on the front line.

So, your argument; women shouldn't join the army, because if they are captured, they'll be raped.

Because, you know, it's not at all like the soldiers realized that when enlisting.

i know a few bad ass women, and well, if they choose to enlist, that's their issue.

From a physical point of view, I suppose. But modern warfare has nothing to do with intimidating the enemy with your soldier's fitness, or getting adrelin rush.

Maybe women in the military would be a mistake in 1875, but pretty much all modern warfare has rendered gender useless.

As for the men protecting women thing, I don't really give a fuck who dies for my country, but right now our military is straining to find people, and when they are asking borderline senior citizens and overweight people to sign up for the military, women are no longer on the bottom of them war barrel.

I wonder how many of the people defending the position of having women in the military have actually served with women. The claim that women are distracting, I can't make any statements about whether or not they are distracting in actual combat but they are a disruption in normal operations in my experience. Many men can keep it from being a personal problem and not all women let themselves cause problems. However, there are a lot of women who use their position to their advantage. I have seen first hand women get men to do all their work for them, they don't even have to have sex with everyone, just a few on occasion to create that reward for moving all the way up the status ladder.

And then there's pregnancy. Women get themselves pregnant a lot in the military. I could rant forever on this subject but I'll just say that I'd prefer that women be contractually obligated to not get pregnant in their first four years of service or face discharge. I know that there would need to be exceptions to the rule but it's really frustrating to see the billets that are supposed to be a break from arduous duty go to women who got themselves pregnant.

Americans are simply not ready to see mothers, sisters, and daughters in bodybags, end of story.

Other than that, there's no real reason I see ( that can't be solved) that women shouldn't be allowed to serve in every aspect as that of a man, including front line grunt duties.

. Granted, my experience comes from both female martial artists and members of my family (my mother is at least quarter native american, so this may be a factor).

Agreed as a fellow Martial Artist. Women can kick your ass, especially if trained to do so.....

Point is, regardless of strength, a sharp knife is a sharp knife. Regarless of who stabs you, it's gonna do damage. Same goes for a gun (even moreso, where strength won't add to the damage)......

At 11/12/06 04:00 AM, Imperator wrote:

. Granted, my experience comes from both female martial artists and members of my family (my mother is at least quarter native american, so this may be a factor).

Agreed as a fellow Martial Artist. Women can kick your ass, especially if trained to do so.....

Believe it or not, men can be traind to kick your ass too. And in a serious conflict, would be more efficient.

Martial Arts =/= frontline combat. Can we all grasp that?

A friendly sparring match is VERY different to life or death combat. By no means am I saying that it's entirely impossible for a woman to kill a man in close quaters, but a man has that chemical advantage over a woman, as well as male soldiers being, in general, much stronger than female ones.

Remember, all soldiers are likely to have martial training, so both combatants will be of a similar skill level, male or female. The woman has the advantage of a lower centre of gravity, but the man has more phsical strength (generally, calm down), testosterone fuled natural aggressoin, and the extra adrenalin boost. Contrary to popular belief, women do not strike that much faster than men, if at all faster. And surely the adrenalin's effect on the male's reaction time would counter this.

And I know, hand to hand combat is not as relevant in war today as it used to be, but i'm not going into firefighting, as it has already been explained.

Had you read all the previous posts, you would realise this. Or are the big ones too intimidating?

I would say the differences between men and women physically in terms of millitary ability is simply stupid. When it comes to strength it doesnt take much to pull a trigger, and under the right training anyone could run with 50lbs on their back. The main difference would be emotional strength.

In the front lines, amidst death and bullets flying around, would a women be able to keep her cool and remember her training. Or would she freak out and break down, or not be able to continue her duty. That is the real question of whether a women can serve in the front line.

There are women who would be able to do that, just like there are men who wouldnt be able to do that. Its all based off their background and training, if a women was raised like her brothers and was never told/allowed to be delicate or danty. Why wouldnt she be able to serve? Just like if a guy was raised to quit, or was never taught it was ok to fight back then I would assume he would be a poor soldier.

I personally think that women should be allowed in the front lines, but they should be subject to the same training, and zero tolerance to those who fool around. If a women is thought to not be able to do her duty, then she should be relocated to a more suttable job.

Besides, hell hath no furry like a womens scorn.

I would never go in the army because no-one could convince me to kill anyone.
Killing your enemy is just as bad as killing your friends... Killing your friends just hurts more.

At 11/12/06 07:49 AM, LolOutLoud wrote: I would never go in the army because no-one could convince me to kill anyone.
Killing your enemy is just as bad as killing your friends... Killing your friends just hurts more.

I'd rather kill my enemy than let him destroy the things i hold dearly; Be it ideals or my homeland.

You are saying you wouldnt defend the things you find right?

I think you meant that women have as much right to war as men, but besides that, They shouldn't fight, they should be spared the torture and pain of war. Men should die before women do, that's why you protect your girlfriend and fight for them instead of the other way around.

thats what i think as well. who should be protecting who? Is the man the one cowering in the corner, while the woman stands up for him?

Anyways, im not all against women in the army, but i wouldnt want to see them on the battlefront.

Well as long as they are seperate from the men soldiers there shouldn't be any problems. Women can be very scary people...

At 11/12/06 04:48 AM, KAOS-666 wrote:

Wow, unnecessary roughness. 5 yard penalty, repeat 1st down......

Martial Arts =/= frontline combat. Can we all grasp that?

Yeah. Where did I state otherwise?
A knife is a knife. When it goes into you, it hurts. I don't care if you're Arnold or some babe.....

A friendly sparring match is VERY different to life or death combat. By no means am I saying that it's entirely impossible for a woman to kill a man in close quaters, but a man has that chemical advantage over a woman, as well as male soldiers being, in general, much stronger than female ones.

None of which matters in a gun fight.
And a knife is still just as sharp and deadly in a woman's hands.

Remember, all soldiers are likely to have martial training, so both combatants will be of a similar skill level, male or female. The woman has the advantage of a lower centre of gravity, but the man has more phsical strength (generally, calm down), testosterone fuled natural aggressoin, and the extra adrenalin boost. Contrary to popular belief, women do not strike that much faster than men, if at all faster. And surely the adrenalin's effect on the male's reaction time would counter this.

Ever hear of the adrenaline dump?

Size and weight are just TWO factors in a fight. You're assuming the women starts at a disadvantage, you also assume similar skill level. Besides the fact that none of the above factors matter much in a gun fight.....

And I know, hand to hand combat is not as relevant in war today as it used to be, but i'm not going into firefighting, as it has already been explained.

Bingo. A chick on the lines is simply a smaller target, especially if you're 100+ yards away....
A gun is a gun. A chick with an M-16 is no different than a dude. Unless we're going back to Bansai charges or Phalanx style combat, I think if a chick wants to fight, let her fight. If anything, it'll confuse the shit out of the enemy, and may give them the initiative in engagements.....

Had you read all the previous posts, you would realise this. Or are the big ones too
intimidating?

Ad Hominem.

Is that all you got? Women are less efficient in CQC, therefore they shouldn't serve in combat roles? That and cheap, irrelevant, and pointless personalized attacks against my intelligence, or rather what you unseemly infer as my intelligence?

At 11/7/06 09:27 PM, A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot wrote: I'm not sure exactly what your problem with women on ships is. I think you might not understand what the Navy's role in combat is.

ah the navy; nothing but rum, the lash and sodomy.

eh cellardoor6 this page hasn't been graced with the presence of hot female Israeli soldiers/security personnel yet.

At 11/7/06 10:31 PM, goozebump wrote: well elts see, Israel allows women into combat/frontline and they are one of the ebst militaries in the world. I haven't heard any complaints, have you?

Welll you see...we dont really get that much israeli news over here.............

At 11/12/06 10:48 PM, Imperator wrote: Bingo. A chick on the lines is simply a smaller target, especially if you're 100+ yards away....
A gun is a gun. A chick with an M-16 is no different than a dude. Unless we're going back to Bansai charges or Phalanx style combat, I think if a chick wants to fight, let her fight. If anything, it'll confuse the shit out of the enemy, and may give them the initiative in engagements.....

Sure, a chick can FIRE an M16 just as well as a dude can, but how does she take being shot at? We can all agree that there are women out there who are hard as nails, and this obviously has less/no relevance to them, but if you need to move from cover to cover under fire, adrenaline helps. Not to mention the 'Oh shit, I'm gonna die' jitters it calms. It's a tired argument now, but it still has an impact on the outcome of a fire fight.

There are reasons women aren't allowed into the frontline, while many of them are political, some are practical. We just need to accept that women are not equal to men. Nor are they less than or (to the total dismay to femi-nazis everywhere) greater than men.

Ad Hominem.

Yeah, it wes a bit that way wasn't it? Sorry dude, no disrespect. Just felt a little bit abusive at that point in time.

cellardoor6, please, the babes...

At 11/12/06 10:50 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

At 11/7/06 09:27 PM, A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot wrote: I'm not sure exactly what your problem with women on ships is. I think you might not understand what the Navy's role in combat is.

ah the navy; nothing but rum, the lash and sodomy.

Err... I mean, I was talking about what the navy is paid for... and sodomy is punishable under the UCMJ with little to no effect.

At 11/13/06 12:19 AM, KAOS-666 wrote:
Sure, a chick can FIRE an M16 just as well as a dude can, but how does she take being shot at? We can all agree that there are women out there who are hard as nails, and this obviously has less/no relevance to them, but if you need to move from cover to cover under fire, adrenaline helps. Not to mention the 'Oh shit, I'm gonna die' jitters it calms. It's a tired argument now, but it still has an impact on the outcome of a fire fight.

How does a man take to being shot at? I mean, regardless of gender, that's a traumatizing experience. And there are PLENTY of war stories about guys flaking out, going nuts, etc. If you're trying to say men are more hardwired to facing life and death situations, I'd heartily disagree with you. NEITHER men nor women are hardwired to be more/less calm under pressure, that's where military training comes in.

There is no study I've seen that says a man will learn to be calmer under fire than a woman, though I won't say that one doesn't exist.

And again, I will ask if you are familiar with the adrenaline dump effect?

Basically, I'm trying to get at the fact that adrenaline needs to be CONTROLLED, and the fact that a man has more actually makes him a lot more unpredictable, as opposed to a better soldier......

Yeah, it wes a bit that way wasn't it? Sorry dude, no disrespect. Just felt a little bit abusive at that point in time.

Oh, thanks for the apology. It's rare you see one of those on here.....S'alright, we all feel like being assholes from time to time.... ;)

cellardoor6, please, the babes...

Agreed!