Women on the front line....

It wasn't me!

jugger0 wrote: »

Pretty ridiculous really, woman and men are completely different, men are always going to be superior fighters, faster, stronger, more aggressive, if women and men cant play on the same sports team then what chance do they have fighting together on a battlefield...

To make really broad generalisations of the same sort, women tend to be much faster to learn new, foreign skillsets, more receptive to criticism without getting their ego bent out of shape. That is directly corroborated by my experience of training hundreds of people of both genders in an area very few come into with any prior experience. Anyone, male or female, who is capable of learning the skills and performing the duties, should be entitled to their fair shot. It may be that far fewer women, proportionally, can achieve the level of physical strength and stamina required for the job, but those who can are at no disadvantage with regard to their male colleagues. Aggression is something that can be conditioned. It's also partly a product of self-motivation, and I've met plenty of women who were every bit as aggressively self-driven as any guys I've known. Now, for me, all of this is contingent on their being no downward revision of any standards to accommodate female entrants or any secondary tier qualification. I believe the requirements must be fixed, regardless of gender. You're not going to get a 50-50 gender split, but I think it's important that those with the motivation should have the opportunity open to them.

Lyaiera

Arawn wrote: »

Honest question if you put a male with basic training up against a female with the same training who would you put yer money on?

If you put a lion against a shark who would you put your money on?

That you even ask that question shows you have no idea what a military life entails. It's not about scraps in the schoolyard.

Arawn

Lyaiera wrote: »

If you put a lion against a shark who would you put your money on?

That you even ask that question shows you have no idea what a military life entails. It's not about scraps in the schoolyard.

Actually I have quite an idea what military life entails, I also train with some of the most athletic and competitive female kickboxers in Ireland. I stand by that males will be superior in an even physical contest.

jugger0

Dean0088 wrote: »

Physical Limitations
I often notice how those who use the weaker female form as an excuse are very often not exactly in tip-top-shape themselves. Women box their way into creating new Olympic categories, and then win them. Women compete on rugby pitches, GAA fields and basketball courts. A woman might not be as strong as a man. But a woman is strong enough to fire a 50 caliber machine gun, march thirty miles with a 100lb pack and a woman is strong enough fire a Carl Gustav 84mm Recoilless Rocket Launcher at a rate of six rounds per minute. We need not look abroad for proof. Look at the Irish Defence Forces and see the women that serve on the front-line abroad.

Lullllzzz obviously women can play these sports, but only against each other... can ya imagine a mens rugby team vs a womens? it would be a massacre. This is all very spoofy, a woman carrying a 100lb pack for 30 miles... most women weigh 100-140 pounds, do you really think they could keep up with the lads on that one? The Irish defence forces are a bad choice, i wouldnt call sitting in a UN base a frontline, when was the last time they saw combat? i love our army but cmon man wake up.

Dean0088 wrote: »

A note on Special Forces
Women should not be permitted to join special forces units however. I am not a hypocrite in saying this. I'm sure they would have no problem in carrying out 99% of the duties. However. Tasks can often involve extreme close living with fellow soldiers for days on end (I'm talking a sniper team lying side-by-side in a ditch pi55ing in bottles and ****ting while lying down in plastic bags).

What's more, the female skeleton and muscles are less dense. These units are shot at in close quarter combat more than regular troops. If a man goes down (and physical requirements dictate he is a 15 stone pack of muscle) then he needs to be moved by a fellow soldier.

Bone breakages and other injures and prone to these tasks.

Finally, these soldiers are kidnapped. A LOT. A female soldier is going to have a much worse time in the hands of Somali rebels than a man would. A MUCH worse time.

Sorry, but in my opinion, not yet.

This are all things normal soldiers on a frontline are going to have to deal with, not just special forces, capture, wounded comrades and being wounded yourself..

Dean0088 wrote: »

Women aren't tough enough to fight on the frontline

I agree

Lyaiera

Arawn wrote: »

Actually I have quite an idea what military life entails, I also train with some of the most athletic and competitive female kickboxers in Ireland. I stand by that males will be superior in an even physical contest.

What does "an even physical contest" have to do with the military?

It wasn't me!

Arawn wrote: »

Honest question if you put a male with basic training up against a female with the same training who would you put yer money on?

If you put a 6'4", 16 stone guy in a hand to hand combat fight with a 5'9", 10 stone guy immediately after basic training, who are you going to bet on? If the latter guy gets mashed to bits, does that mean he shouldn't be there? He passed basic training. He gets his go. What if the latter guy is fighting a woman his own size and who's got some experience in a decent martial art? If the other guy's physical build confers different advantages down the line, fair fecks, but both earned their place the same way initially. I've known a good few soldiers. Very few of them were really big guys. Most of the good ones were very smart, very thoughtful and very well informed. They were also fit and tough. Funnily enough, women can be all of these things just as well as men.

Lyaiera

Honest question, do you think women are capable of playing airsoft? It involves lots of time on the internet reading military manuals and then reciting them at "milsims" before running up to thirty feet away from someone and helplessly sparying little plastic balls in their general vicinity hoping the wind blows one of them into your opponent. At that point you have to yell, "I hit you!" and scream at the referee that "they're cheating" before going off in a huff to get a quarter pounder and large curry chips from the chip van. After that you need to go online and tell anyone and everyone that Russian tanks are far superior to American tanks and Israeli women are a disgrace to armed forces everywhere. Once all that's done it's time for a cry in bed over how the Irish Defence Forces were bastards for not letting you into the air corp to fly jets.

jugger0

Lyaiera wrote: »

You do realise that if you said that kind of stuff to an army recruiter they'd laugh at you and pack you off to basic training where you'd be beaten into shape. "Aggressive and capable of violence" my arse. They're not looking for cavemen with clubs they're looking for intelligence. Gung ho boys playing at soldiers and war is the last thing they want.

Are ya serious? soldiers are trained killers, you have to be able to kill another human with gun, knife or your bare hands, they are not looking for people who would soil themselves when in combat, as i said men are more aggressive and capable of violence.

It wasn't me!

jugger0 wrote: »

Are ya serious? soldiers are trained killers, you have to be able to kill another human with gun, knife or your bare hands, they are not looking for people who would soil themselves when in combat, as i said men are more aggressive and capable of violence.

Because women would soil themselves in combat? Plenty of decorated women in the likes of engineering regiments who've seen plenty combat in the last ten years? Don't recall any particular notes of how they shat themselves either.

jugger0

It wasn't me! wrote: »

If you put a 6'4", 16 stone guy in a hand to hand combat fight with a 5'9", 10 stone guy immediately after basic training, who are you going to bet on? If the latter guy gets mashed to bits, does that mean he shouldn't be there?

Obviously some men are stronger then others but the difference between these two fellas would be small compared to the difference the smaller lad and a woman, ya cant compare them.

It wasn't me!

jugger0 wrote: »

Obviously some men are stronger then others but the difference between these two fellas would be small compared to the difference the smaller lad and a woman, ya cant compare them.

Lots of guys don't get through either the initial entry tests for the army or the basic training that follows, be it either a cadetship or general service. If women can prove themselves more physically able than the guys who are failing, then why shouldn't they remain there? What are you basing your decision on anyway that women can't be suitable soldiers? What's your experience?

Lyaiera

jugger0 wrote: »

Are ya serious? soldiers are trained killers, you have to be able to kill another human with gun, knife or your bare hands, they are not looking for people who would soil themselves when in combat, as i said men are more aggressive and capable of violence.

Yeah. Or you can take the modern military's attitude to it where if you're killing someone with a knife or your bare hands you've ****ed up, ignored your training and you deserve whatever happens to you.

You're thinking of WWI. The military has moved on a bit since then.

Arawn

It wasn't me! wrote: »

If you put a 6'4", 16 stone guy in a hand to hand combat fight with a 5'9", 10 stone guy immediately after basic training, who are you going to bet on? If the latter guy gets mashed to bits, does that mean he shouldn't be there? He passed basic training. He gets his go. What if the latter guy is fighting a woman his own size and who's got some experience in a decent martial art? If the other guy's physical build confers different advantages down the line, fair fecks, but both earned their place the same way initially. I've known a good few soldiers. Very few of them were really big guys. Most of the good ones were very smart, very thoughtful and very well informed. They were also fit and tough. Funnily enough, women can be all of these things just as well as men.

when women do the same push ups, sit ups and timed run as men in the military we can talk, as it is they have the easier entrance

It wasn't me!

Arawn wrote: »

when women do the same push ups, sit ups and timed run as men in the military we can talk, as it is they have the easier entrance

In the defence forces, yes, and that's what I have a major, major problem with, since they can't realistically be expected to be capable of the same physical duties without undergoing the same tests to the same standard. What we're talking about here, however, is the hypothetical scenario in which women are eligible for combat roles, which is now a reality in the US. I don't know whether the entry requirements differ there for each sex, but as long as they're the same, it's fair. If they're different, it's not. Simple as, really.

Arawn

It wasn't me! wrote: »

In the defence forces, yes, and that's what I have a major, major problem with, since they can't realistically be expected to be capable of the same physical duties without undergoing the same tests to the same standard. What we're talking about here, however, is the hypothetical scenario in which women are eligible for combat roles, which is now a reality in the US. I don't know whether the entry requirements differ there for each sex, but as long as they're the same, it's fair. If they're different, it's not. Simple as, really.

The americans have come out and said that the women will need to pass the same tests as the men, I remain doubtful, but as we are in Ireland, I stand by the statement, when women can do the same as males on the entry etc that is when they should take a guys place, not a second sooner.

It wasn't me!

Arawn wrote: »

The americans have come out and said that the women will need to pass the same tests as the men, I remain doubtful, but as we are in Ireland, I stand by the statement, when women can do the same as males on the entry etc that is when they should take a guys place, not a second sooner.

And I absolutely agree, 100%. That's the cutting edge of fairness and equality, right there.

Lyaiera

Arawn wrote: »

The americans have come out and said that the women will need to pass the same tests as the men, I remain doubtful

Why would the American military lie about that?

jugger0

jugger0 wrote: »

men are more aggressive and capable of violence.

Which gives women an advantage. You can go around boxing people in the head and yelling war cries if you want, but if I needed to stay alive I'd much prefer to have a strategy and a clear head.

jugger0 wrote: »

Obviously some men are stronger then others but the difference between these two fellas would be small compared to the difference the smaller lad and a woman, ya cant compare them.

There were 105 men in the 2012 Olympic marathon. The winning time of the women's marathon was the same as the time of the 64th men's time. That's 41 male olympians that the fastest woman would have beaten. 103 women were faster than the slowest man. Bear in mind, he may have been the slowest, but he was the slowest out of a group of people considered to be the fastest male marathon runners in the world. The American military has 1,458,219 active members (beware, all my facts are from wikipedia). Do you honestly think that with a force that size, full of people who are highly trained, there isn't a single woman (or a couple thousand) that wouldn't be able to beat some of the men.

Bear in mind also that the majority of the time, both people will be using guns anyway. So as long as you have the right training, I don't see how a woman wouldn't be able to match a man.

jugger0

Lyaiera wrote: »

Yeah. Or you can take the modern military's attitude to it where if you're killing someone with a knife or your bare hands you've ****ed up, ignored your training and you deserve whatever happens to you.

You're thinking of WWI. The military has moved on a bit since then.

There have been bayonet charges in the Afghanistan war, so you're wrong there, not to mention covert operations where killing an enemy with a knife is the most silent route to take. If your gun jams or you run out of ammunition you will have to use your knife, the Taliban don't treat prisoners too kindly so surrendering isnt an option.

jugger0

true-or-false wrote: »

Which gives women an advantage. You can go around boxing people in the head and yelling war cries if you want, but if I needed to stay alive I'd much prefer to have a strategy and a clear head.

So men in the military dont/cant use strategy? i dont even...

true-or-false wrote: »

There were 105 men in the 2012 Olympic marathon. The winning time of the women's marathon was the same as the time of the 64th men's time. That's 41 male olympians that the fastest woman would have beaten. 103 women were faster than the slowest man. Bear in mind, he may have been the slowest, but he was the slowest out of a group of people considered to be the fastest male marathon runners in the world. The American military has 1,458,219 active members (beware, all my facts are from wikipedia). Do you honestly think that with a force that size, full of people who are highly trained, there isn't a single woman (or a couple thousand) that wouldn't be able to beat some of the men.

Bear in mind also that the majority of the time, both people will be using guns anyway. So as long as you have the right training, I don't see how a woman wouldn't be able to match a man.

These are Olympians, we're talking about average people, the average western woman is in very poor physical shape and mentally wouldn't be able to handle war. Women cant pass the same physical entrance exams as men so its absolulety disgraceful they should be given an easier one just because they are women, its completely unfair on the male soldiers.

jaffacakesyum

jugger0 wrote: »

These are Olympians, we're talking about average people, the average western woman is in very poor physical shape and mentally wouldn't be able to handle war. Women cant pass the same physical entrance exams as men so its absolulety disgraceful they should be given an easier one just because they are women, its completely unfair on the male soldiers.

Firstly, how on earth did you get the impression that "the average Western woman" who is in "very poor physical shape" would be let into the military?

The average Western male who is in very poor physical shape won't be let into the military.

Secondly, why do you think women won't mentally be able to handle war?

And finally, the American military will have the same physical entrance exams for women as for males. So why, if women pass the same tests, shouldn't they be allowed on the front line?

If you don't agree with that, you're sexist pure and simple. Which is fine, but it would be big of you if you at least admitted it.

eviltwin

I think some of the posters here are mixing up war with Call of Duty. I come from an army family ( british army ) , its not about beefcake, its about smarts.

It wasn't me!

The "average" person of either gender will not be physically or mentally capable of service. That's why you have entry exams, then a far more demanding training period. We are absolutely not talking about "average" people.

the_syco

jugger0 wrote: »

Are ya serious? soldiers are trained killers, you have to be able to kill another human with gun, knife or your bare hands, they are not looking for people who would soil themselves when in combat, as i said men are more aggressive and capable of violence.

Do you need another shovel? It seems your current one isn't digging the hole fast enough... :pac:

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

And finally, the American military will have the same physical entrance exams for women as for males. So why, if women pass the same tests, shouldn't they be allowed on the front line?

(Current) US Army Requirements;

Men: between 60 inches and 80 inches
Women: 58 and 80 inches tall

Men: at least 13 push ups and 17 sit ups.
Women: a minimum of 3 push ups and 17 sit ups.

Men: They should also be able to run a mile in 8 and a half minutes.
Women: They should be able to run a mile in 10 and a half minutes.

The max height:weight ratio is lower for women, probably because they're historically lighter than men.

I cannot find the standard pack weight, and whether or not the women have to carry the same as the men?

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I thought one of the reasons used for not allowing women in combat was not about competancy but about the compromising of the men in battle, in that once upon a time men were believed to have an instinct or a reflex to protect women and if women were present they would get distracted from the tasks at hand because of it.

Such instincts, like the instinct that stops most people from committing murder, can and is trained out of soldiers - they wouldn't be much good otherwise. The US Marine corp is noted for turning its recruits into competently ruthless fighting machines, and oft criticized for not reversing this conditioning once their personnel muster out.

And this training is already present in anti-Terrorism. The book Shoot the Women First was named after advice supposedly given to the sharpshooters in Germany's GSG 9 anti-terrorist squad, and the book itself sought to dispel such myths that female terrorists were either natural aberrations or somehow victims brainwashed into committing acts of violence.

Personally I welcome this move and hope other nations take a more gender neutral approach to these things.

Of course, the true test of gender equality in the military will be if women are subject to any existing draft or conscription equally as men. If not, such moves are really about choice and not equality.

jugger0

the_syco wrote: »

(Current) US Army Requirements;

Men: between 60 inches and 80 inches
Women: 58 and 80 inches tall

Men: at least 13 push ups and 17 sit ups.
Women: a minimum of 3 push ups and 17 sit ups.

Men: They should also be able to run a mile in 8 and a half minutes.
Women: They should be able to run a mile in 10 and a half minutes.

The max height:weight ratio is lower for women, probably because they're historically lighter than men.

I cannot find the standard pack weight, and whether or not the women have to carry the same as the men?

That is terrible, both for the females and males, shocking standards. Standard gear is around 100lbs though sometimes can be 150lb.

clairefontaine

the_syco wrote: »

Do you need another shovel? It seems your current one isn't digging the hole fast enough... :pac:


(Current) US Army Requirements;

Men: between 60 inches and 80 inches
Women: 58 and 80 inches tall

Men: at least 13 push ups and 17 sit ups.
Women: a minimum of 3 push ups and 17 sit ups.

Men: They should also be able to run a mile in 8 and a half minutes.
Women: They should be able to run a mile in 10 and a half minutes.

The max height:weight ratio is lower for women, probably because they're historically lighter than men.

I cannot find the standard pack weight, and whether or not the women have to carry the same as the men?

If they cry equality it will probably end up that the standard will be lowered to the woman's level. As I said before, this is a cynical move to be able to use more people in combat because they are running out of soldiers and the US is involved every pie going in the ME. If they lower the standards they can get and use more people [men and women] to die for them.

jugger0

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Firstly, how on earth did you get the impression that "the average Western woman" who is in "very poor physical shape" would be let into the military?.

Easier physical exams, they should be equal, fair is fair.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Secondly, why do you think women won't mentally be able to handle war?

Have you ever seen a woman around a spider or mouse? woman would be far too emotional and wouldn't have the guts for a fight.

Morag

jugger0 wrote: »

Have you ever seen a woman around a spider or mouse? woman would be far too emotional and wouldn't have the guts for a fight.

Oh your so quaint, really you are, either that or your just trollling.

It wasn't me!

jugger0 wrote: »

Easier physical exams, they should be equal, fair is fair.

Then the obvious answer is to make them the same, and at the higher level. This is something I've personally been saying for years. I want to see women given the opportunities, but not at the expense of standards.

Have you ever seen a woman around a spider or mouse? woman would be far too emotional and wouldn't have the guts for a fight.

This is either trolling or complete stupidity. Want to declare which? I've seen women kill, field dress and butcher animals without batting an eyelid. Not all guys have the stomach for that, nor do all women, but saying either gender is more or less likely to hold it together is complete crap.