Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/7/06 08:19 PM, Yayer wrote:

Wouldn't that be considered sexist to pitty a woman over a man?

I'd call it more or less chivalry

Women should not be mans protector, they shouldn't be anyones protector.

So they shouldn't even protect themselves, or the ideals they believe in? Your also saying that if, theoretically, a guy points a gun in your face while a woman's there, one who could potentially save your life, the woman shouldn't try to help you out.

Woman cops are not as well equipped to be cops as men are, biologically they cannot recieve the same adrenaline rush...

You don't need that adrenaline rush to be a cop. Sure it may help a little by keeping you on your toes but it can also cause you to get a trigger finger which isn't the best thing to have when trying to negotiate in a standoff.

if you see a beutiful blonde curvy cop are you going to surrender to them without a fight

No, but you see a woman can distract a man. Especially if she's hot. While she distracts, other cops can apprehend the target easier. Also, A woman cop can basically grab another female and not have to worry as much about sexual harrassment charges. Not to mention, some women cops are placed around cities with high rape rates. If a suspect grabs her, she can defend herself and arrest the criminal due to the fact that, from what I've read, female cops recieve more self defense training.

Men and Women have different roles in life and should not be treated equally when it comes to things like this.

So what I'm getting from this is that you believe that women should be stay at home wives, always have dinner ready for when husbands come home, be the stereotypical damsel in distress, not be allowed to defend their ideals in terms of conflicts, and be all together weak.
I'm not going to call you sexist because you do bring up some good points, but why should a man be able to do basically whatever he wants, within the extent of the law of course, and a woman not be allowed?

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!

At 11/12/06 07:53 AM, Sir-S-Of-ROFL wrote:

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 wouldn't defend "my" homeland because it was never "mine" in the first place.
I wouldn't defend the things I find right because I know that what is right to me is probably not right to someone else and that I have to respect their point of view and try to find a middle-ground where everyone can be half-happy at least.
The only thing that would make me fight, would be if the opposing party refused to even consider my interests... Which unfortunately, is the reason why so many wars begin... The war in Iraq was one of them (George Bush not considering the views of Saddam's government - In which case Bush is at fault).
I would find it more morally acceptable to fight for the Iraq government than the US because of this. Saddam should have been assassinated quietly if Bush didn't like him. They didn't need a war get reforms underway.

Men can also get raped.
Not the same equipment, sure... but an orifice is an orifice--

At 11/13/06 01:00 AM, Imperator wrote:
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?

No, I did a search on it, all I got was vauge references made in passing. Link?

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......

Soldiers get a fairly standardised amount of training. And I'm sure the military would be aware of the effects of adrenaline, and have soldiers train to take advantage of it. Naturally counter-adrenaline techniques would have to be tought, for situations where it is not necissary (or just plain dangerous). It would be an epic oversight on the military's part not exploit this natural performance enhancer.

I am certain that I would be more comfortable whith assigning a detatchment of male soldiers to take and hold an objective, as opposed to a detatchment of female ones. It's not because I have any desire to shelter women from the horrors of war, but I'd just trust males to fufil the mission with greater efficiency. Maybe I just don't trust females. =\

At 11/7/06 08:19 PM, Yayer wrote: stuff

Your argument keeped waffling. i could quote parts of what you said and use that as an argument against you. Like you said that women choose to be in the millitary and choose to put their life on the line. If they choose to do so, than who are you to tell them they can't in this time of war?

I'm not even going to touch on the sexism part of this, but what I am going to say is that this country is in serious need of soldiors and it doesn't matter what sex that soldior is, as long as they are willing to fight.

In my opinion, people are free to do what they like, wether it's joining the Military or being a housewife/husband.
You stated that women aren't as physically built for a job like that as men, but that is an average, they can't test every single woman in the world can they?
Some women may find it easier to get fit and may be able to cope better than men in many situations vice versa.
So what if they do find it harder? It's their decision and there's alone.
What you said about 'roles in life' is just a boundary that society has created to put people in their place and in many ways it is a fascism.
Men or woman may feel like they want to be strong and protect their family and take up say a 'hero' status, but it's then not fair for them to dictate that for everyone.

About women being raped and the media involvment;

It's fair enough for them to get involved, they show us what war is really like so that they don't put out a false impression that war is all OK and easy.
The media can portray things in a different light too, so really, you don't really have a valid opinion until you've experienced it yourself.

I'm not condoning war or the involvment in Military forces as i think all mass violence is wrong and that the war in Iraq was a terrible mistake. I'm only standing up for free speech and against people with one-sided views on a subject that effects everyone.

Okay, I don't even know where to start with this, so I'll just pick something random.
Ahem...
Women and men are different...just LOOK at'em. Different development, mind-altering hormone cycles, and even physiology. They should be in different parts of the military, just like you should use a HWP specialist against a tank rather than a trained sniper, their differences in physiology and funding required to train them means that they need to have separate positions.
Now, of course, there will be exceptions. There will be women who are just as physically able as a man in combat duties and thus should get that job along with most of the men, and men who are better at sitting at a desk, making complicated decisions, who should get that job along with most of the women (in reality, men seem to get most of those jobs for some reason, but that's beside the point.)
Women require more effort to train for combat, and, in general, will be less likely to be put into combat. I, personally advocate women be allowed into front line combat situations. No doubt, though, due to inherent differences in gender physiology and sociological upbringing, there will likely be an overwhelming number of men still in those kinds of jobs. It will still be overwhelmingly dominated by men.
What I certainly don't advocate is some kind of artificial segregation our affirmitave action to skew the demographics in those jobs. That would be just plain retarded. You can't have an entire platoon or ship consisting of only men or women unless, out of some wild coincidence, their skills/demeanor completely and totally prohibited men and women from being together. Now I'm sure that someone's gonna reply to this reiterating the argument that the women might get raped. Well, tell me this: If a woman becomes physically and mentally fit as a man, being just as good as, or superior to her male counterparts, would you want to rape her? At that point, she'd essentially be a dude. Could you rape her, even? Would you be willing to have sex with her, even if she started seriously coming on to you? Or would you rather just go to the bathroom and relieve your uncontrollable urges there? Think about that.

There is to much PC here.

1) Women are smaller and less able to meet the requirements that men are. Just go to a weight room, see the weights women use. Small. Even the scrawniest guys can use more weight than an equal sized and weight woman.
2) Women and men together equal sex. You dont need to mix that up when all you want your soldiers running on is training and instincts. Whoever suggested there would be some comradely love is a fool. Dudes would be trying to get in those chicks pants all the time. And when you sleep with someone, even just have a crush on someone, it complicates things ALOT which I am sure everyone recgonizes as truth. And in a military situation you dont need that complication, complications equal mistakes and lapses of judgement and death.
3) Need more facilities to handle seprate sexes. Its like on submarines, they are all men and men only. They cant handle women in the subs to get pregnant or whatever when they are month and month long tours of duty. They dont have space for seperate washrooms. They cant provide all the amenities needed for a different sex. And most of all they dont need stir crazy submariners being sex crazy 24/7.
4) My personal reason: I would NEVER EVER want a women in a foxhole with me. Imperator, whoever, answer me this: can you say in all honesty you would want to share a foxhole with a woman who you know is likely less physically able to handle her duty than a man of equal physical training would? No, I would take the man every day of the week.

It all comes down to number four to me. I would not want to share a foxhole with a woman.

Having woman in the military reminds the men what there fighting for. Having men in the military reminds the woman what there fighting against. lol

BTW
Men probably do get raped in the military but they think its a good thing.

As long as they do there job who cares if there men or woman.

At 11/13/06 04:32 PM, internet-lord wrote:

As long as they do there job who cares if there men or woman.

Exactly, that's why i'm against women being in the SAS as during interrogation it is ultimately a lot easier for a woman to give information than a man... Also, in the SAS they have to take out anyone/thing that could compromise them.. Lets say, for example, a child sees them and starts to run towards the enemy force to tell them.. The SAS have to take down the child in order for their own survival and the success of the operation.

To be honest, there hasn't been an indepth study into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder comparing women and men so i cant come to a definitive stance on whether or not women should be allowed to fight on the front lines..

By the way.. Women in the RAF are ace.

At 11/13/06 04:32 PM, internet-lord wrote: BTW
Men probably do get raped in the military but they think its a good thing.

Actually they do and more than you think; and its not by women.

If a woman can pass the training, then let her in.

A military should essentially be a sexless machine.

At 11/13/06 05:24 PM, Peter-II wrote: If a woman can pass the training, then let her in.

Do you wanna share a foxhole with a woman or with a man of equal training and relative fitness?

A military should essentially be a sexless machine.

Nothing is sexless. Pretending it is doesnt make it so.

At 11/13/06 05:33 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 11/13/06 05:24 PM, Peter-II wrote: If a woman can pass the training, then let her in.

Do you wanna share a foxhole with a woman or with a man of equal training and relative fitness?

In my time in the military I've met men I'd want to shoot myself since they're useless, and women who I believe would have my back through hell. & Vice Versa

I think that everyone is missing the undeniable fact that men and women have sex with eachother. No, it won't go away. No, they won't become like family. What happens is that a few guys have sex with the few women and people get jealous. Then the situation changes and it's different guys who are having sex with the women and eventually everyone who wasn't smart enough to stay out of that disaster hates eachother.

It's called reality.

At 11/13/06 01:35 AM, fli wrote: Men can also get raped.
Not the same equipment, sure... but an orifice is an orifice--

Not really.

At 11/13/06 06:04 PM, A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot wrote: I think that everyone is missing the undeniable fact that men and women have sex with eachother. No, it won't go away. No, they won't become like family. What happens is that a few guys have sex with the few women and people get jealous. Then the situation changes and it's different guys who are having sex with the women and eventually everyone who wasn't smart enough to stay out of that disaster hates eachother.

It's called reality.

It's not like how you described it. I was stationed at Kunsan, AB in Korea where the male:female ratio was 12:1. What you described above was not much of an issue.

Instead of the "Love Triangle" you should have tackled it from the pregnancy angle. A female getting pregnant does cause a hardship. In Korea she can get out of her tour early and sent home. Meanwhile the unit has to pick-up the slack caused by the absent member because it is often difficult to get a replacement. The same goes for other deployed units and ships at sea.

At 11/13/06 06:06 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 11/13/06 01:35 AM, fli wrote: Men can also get raped.
Not the same equipment, sure... but an orifice is an orifice--

Not really.

Are you denying that men get raped?

I heard a statistic once that more men get raped in a year in the US than women. How? It's called prison. Furthermore, male on male rape goes under-reported more than male on female. I had a medic friend in Korea who had to pull weekend first responder duty once a month and responded to several rapes. She told me that attending to a male on male rape was harder on the victim (and her to respond to) than male on female.

No, I did a search on it, all I got was vauge references made in passing. Link?

Damnit! My searches have failed as well......

I learned this in MA class, so I'll describe it the best I can.

Anyways, the Adrenaline Dump is an effect of too much adrenaline in the system. Basically, you freeze up, and you don't know why. If you've ever read survival stories or bystander stories, etc, this is what happens when someone says "I know I should have run/fought/yelled/etc, but my body just didn't move".

Essentially, if we look at the effect of adrenaline on a continuum, this is the polar opposite of freezing due to fear.

NO adrenaline----------------right amount--------------------too much
Fear--------------perfect soldier--------------adrenaline dump.

Remember, you can't fight effectively when your emotions get the best of you, and the way adrenaline affects the hypothalamus and other areas of the brain is to enable fight or flight.
That means the guy all hopped up on his adrenaline rush is gonna not listen to orders, and be as much a danger to himself as other friendlies and enemies alike.

Military training (and MA training) teaches how to control that adrenaline, to remain focused during drastic life or death situations, and enable us to make calm, rational choices.

But I guess we've already established this point, and it ends up moot anyways.

Yeah, guys have more adrenaline, but that's not necessarily a good thing either. That was all I was getting at, meaning that women may be much more calm and controlled than men in a pitched battle.

Maybe I just don't trust females. =\

Or that..... ;)

I think that everyone is missing the undeniable fact that men and women have sex with eachother.

I think you need to re-read the last 3 pages......

In my time in the military I've met men I'd want to shoot myself since they're useless, and women who I believe would have my back through hell. & Vice Versa

That's what I'm trying to get at (in my own confusing roundabout way). The gender of an individual is not the deciding factor on how effective a soldier they will be.

I think that everyone is missing the undeniable fact that men and women have sex with eachother.

did i already use that old saying about the British navy?

If the women are willing as the men are to die for this country, well I say let them. However most people don't want to die, just another G.I. with their face in the sand, etc. My grandfather fought in Korea, and Vietnam, never got shot, he got medals, my grandad on my creators side fought in WW2, Vietnam, and Korean war, got shot 2 times, and was a fighter pilot. If you're going into the military because you're getting bad grades, well you're probibly going to die, lol. That sounded kind of funny in a sick kind of way so if you're going to go to war, get some brains, and become a pilot, where it's safer. Anythings better than front line, even a cook.