Women in the Military: Should they be allowed in combat?

[LifeMaiden]

More controversy. Does it ever stop with me? :D


Okay. I just finished reading a couple of books which kept me glued page to page late, late into the wee hours last week and the previous week. As some of you know, I'm a history major and a huge fan of military history, weapons and warfare.


Women are in all the armed forces, and many have attained great honor at the military academies like West Point and the US Naval Academy, as well as the Air Force and Coast Guard academies. They are allowed to attend other prestigious schools such as Virginia Military Institute, and the Citadel.

We've seen campy movies like GI Jane in the Hollywood attempt to show how a woman doesn't lack the physical strength or stamina to be a Navy Seal.

Women have attained high rank in all the areas of the Armed Forces and have died in wars although not in combat.


Should women, in your opinion, be allowed therefore, to fight in combat alongside with men? Why or why not? Do you believe it's because women could not withstand the heat, intensity, and incredible stress of battle, or because it's simply a place a woman SHOULD not be? That her place is behind the lines?


Also, in light of the two books I read, one called IN THE COMPANY OF MEN, written by Citadel graduate by Nancy Mac, and WOMEN IN THE BARRACKS by Phillippa Strum, about the VMI Case aqnd Equal Rights, do you

believe that women should not have been allowed in those schools?

[Son of Adam]

Do you lay awake at night and think of these questions, Michelle? ROFLOL

[LifeMaiden]

Do you lay awake at night and think of these questions, Michelle? ROFLOL

I'm waiting impatiently for your answer. :D

[Ephinie]

Well... as to how well a woman can fare in combat, I'll say this: Historically, women have fought in combat on the front lines in almost every war that has ever taken place. I am also not talking about women who followed the army or acted as nurses or what have you. No, I am talking about women who actually disguised themselves at men and fought as combatants. I read one book that specifically dealt with this happening during the Civil War. It's called They Fought Like Demons, by DeAnne Blanton and Lauren M. Cook. It's a good read.

Also, my advisor for my undergraduate degree was/is obsessed with women during wartime. He told us once about a group of Russian women who fought as combatants during one or both of the World Wars (can't remember exactly which), and he claimed that they were far more brutal and efficient than the units staffed by their male counterparts.

So it seems to me that women, in the past, have fared at least as well as men in combat... and have executed their duties with at least as much competence.

As to the question of whether or not women SHOULD be placed in combat situations... Okay, let's be honest. NO ONE should EVER have to be in combat. I see this as just as true for men as for women. But the reality is that combat is necessary when you are at war, and someone's gotta do it. I see no reason why women, who have historically done just as well in combat as men (often with the added difficulty of having to pretend to be a man at the same time), should be exempt where men are not.

Another thing to note. My geography professor that I had my Freshman year claimed that women are better shots than men naturally because we have a lower center of gravity. I do not know if this is true, but that is what he said. Combat these days involves quite a lot of shooting, or so I've heard.

[EveningStar]

they were far more brutal and efficient than the units staffed by their male counterparts.Most married men could tell you THAT. :D

All jokes aside, did you know the Romans had women gladiators for a while but finally banned them from the arena because their violence was considered particularly hard edged?

[Samwise Gamgee]

YES! Sorry but What a dumb question[sorry] How do you think of these questions any ways? Women are all ready flying the UH-60's and Appachees and the Chinoks[ UH-60's are BlackHawks. these are types of Helicopters and I misspelled the last one] Many of them are very good in going to do stuff for the army. I say they should be aloud to go into combate. I wish the army would let them.

[Malacandra]

Dumb question. Aslan13 is right, though possibly not for the reasons she thought. I haven't been argumentative and contentious enough lately, so I'll step up and take a shot at this.

Well... as to how well a woman can fare in combat, I'll say this: Historically, women have fought in combat on the front lines in almost every war that has ever taken place. I am also not talking about women who followed the army or acted as nurses or what have you. No, I am talking about women who actually disguised themselves at men and fought as combatants. I read one book that specifically dealt with this happening during the Civil War. It's called They Fought Like Demons, by DeAnne Blanton and Lauren M. Cook. It's a good read.

A statistically-insignificant number of self-selected women have gone to war from time to time and managed not to be conspicuously incompetent. It's a long leap from that to arguing that in general women can, or should be encouraged to, serve in combat with the same efficiency as men.

Also, my advisor for my undergraduate degree was/is obsessed with women during wartime. He told us once about a group of Russian women who fought as combatants during one or both of the World Wars (can't remember exactly which), and he claimed that they were far more brutal and efficient than the units staffed by their male counterparts.

That would presumably have been World War II, or the Great Patriotic War as the Russians call it. You should remember that Russian strategy called for all the personnel that was going - many millions of Russians went through the meat-grinder in that war. At times like that, even a bunch of females able and tentatively willing to hold a rifle looks better than nothing. As to "brutal", that's highly possible - anyone who's either read Kipling's The Female Of The Species or kept an eye on the treatment of Iraqi prisoners will be in no doubt over the ability of women to be brutal, especially when the object of the brutality is either helpless or under the guns of a man - but "brutal" and "efficient" aren't necessarily synonymous. "Efficient" in what sense? At loading shells into the main gun of a T-34 tank? At carrying around a watercooled heavy machine-gun and its ammunition belts?

So it seems to me that women, in the past, have fared at least as well as men in combat... and have executed their duties with at least as much competence.

Not proven, and I believe you had to show much more intellectual rigour to get your degree. A book of anecdotes and the word of an "obsessed" educational advisor without established credentials on the subject don't constitute much of a case.

As to the question of whether or not women SHOULD be placed in combat situations... Okay, let's be honest. NO ONE should EVER have to be in combat. I see this as just as true for men as for women. But the reality is that combat is necessary when you are at war, and someone's gotta do it. I see no reason why women, who have historically done just as well in combat as men (often with the added difficulty of having to pretend to be a man at the same time), should be exempt where men are not.

I partly agree, to the extent that I certainly don't believe that either I or my sons are more "expendable" than women, particularly in this age when we don't need all the women who possibly can pop out babies doing so simply in order to see that births slightly outnumber deaths. But the reality is that women haven't "historically done just as well in combat as men" - rather that, say, a few women have held their own when strongly motivated to do so, or that a rather larger number served well enough as Stalin's cannon-fodder in dire emergency.

Another thing to note. My geography professor that I had my Freshman year claimed that women are better shots than men naturally because we have a lower center of gravity. I do not know if this is true, but that is what he said. Combat these days involves quite a lot of shooting, or so I've heard.

This reminds me of an article I read in Dragon magazine the better part of twenty years ago. It was about jousting and it claimed in all seriousness that female jousters should receive a bonus based on their lower centre of gravity - which is fair enough if you ignore certain other factors, such as males being fifty, seventy or a hundred pounds heavier, and with the upper-body strength to manage a heavier lance and shield, and so on. I do not know why your geography professor should be respected as an expert on shooting, but it should be a readily verifiable fact that women are indeed better shots than men; target shooting is a popular sport, and extensive records are kept.

Is a lower centre of gravity especially relevant? I believe a great deal of combat shooting is conducted either prone or from a kneeling position. In the prone posture the centre of gravity advantage (if it is one) disappears; in all postures with any degree of "uprightness" to them, we must remember that the man has the strength advantage needed to hold the rifle steady and the strength and mass to handle the recoil. Additionally, men typically have better spatial awareness and are better able to track a moving target.

Combat these days involves quite a lot of shooting; on the other hand, it involves quite a lot of being able to carry stuff: machine-guns, ammunition belts, LAWs, grenade-launchers, light mortars and their shells, and so on. A lot of this is beyond the capability of the average woman. But of course we ensure that women recruited for the military are as physically capable as men? No, sadly, we don't; making women pass the same strength and fitness tests as men would be sexist as it would exclude far more women than men. This causes problems. Cite (http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml).

I'm reluctant to tread on anyone's dreams, but until such time as no-one needs to carry anything heavier than a phaser, women aren't going to be anything like a good bargain in combat roles, and all too often they will merely be a liability to the man who has to help carry their stuff as well as his own.

(What this has to do with Christianity and Narnia I leave to wiser heads than mine, but my dear friend LifeMaiden has her post count to keep up, no doubt. ;) )

[Parthian King]

I am continually struck by Lewis' prophetic wisdom, even in what would normally be considered "asides" in his rolling narratives. When through Father Christmas he makes the remark to Susan and Lucy about the grimness of women in combat, he is saying a great deal. Our generation is that which (for political reasons) mentions by name the 5 or 10 or 2 soldiers who have been killed in action that day. Lewis (and Tolkien, for that matter, with his comment on this being made through Eowyn) were of the generation that saw millions die in the Battle of the Somme, at Ypres, at Verdun, and (later) saw millions more die in the battles of the Second Great War. These are wars of publicly posted casualty lists and mass graves--for those fortunate enough to benefit from them. The difference in the scope of things does matter as one discusses these issues. It is the posture of a genteel Christian man who resists the idea of Eve carrying out the ugly business of war, something which is far more comprehensive and horrible than a few well-marked shafts from an arrow in a single cataclysmic battle. There is nothing romantic, dashing, or attractive about war, and Lewis is letting us know that even as he and Tolkien exalt the ideals over which just wars are fought.

I would that no women would ever fight, and however well they can fight is immaterial to me. On this point I am a "traditionalist," and, speaking on a societal level, I would prefer that certain roles be played because the sexes each have gifts that the other does not. Women make better healers of men than men make healers of women, in my view. For my part, I'd rather they stay back a represent a bloque of society that is unmarred, as much as possible, by direct contact with the ravages of war. God knows there have been countless times in history when God's fairest creatures have been unable to avoid these things, and if we can by our choice have them to avoid it, let it be so. If any sister here resents this, know that you are resenting that which comes from a heart of care for you.

On a purely practical note, my son has told me what it is like to have women and men together in close military quarters, and how hard it is on morale. I don't know which genius or committee came up with the bright idea of tossing men and women onto a ship and having them work shoulder to shoulder for months on end at sea, but I'd like to give them a piece of my mind. (The same can surely be said of every branch of the military.) What do you expect, to happen, you bunch of lamebrains? That they'll stick to checkers and hopscotch? When the women end up pregnant, and both sexes end up at Captain's Mast or worse, I suggest that the "equality" freaks that came up with the idea be thrown there too, to face equal punishment. Women and men are different, period. Those differences are not lost on them when they are placed in close quarters, under great duress, and at perhaps the loneliest times of their lives. I am not suggesting these people are not adults (though some only barely qualify for the legal definition of that term) and that they should not be held responsible for their action; I am saying that in the big picture, to put men and women in their sexual prime together under military circumstances is poor military strategy and makes sense only to a culture that is more concerned with political correctness than with winning wars.

[Copperfox]

Having lately retired from the Navy, I can attest that unit effectiveness IS damaged by the number of women getting pregnant. And without taking any adamant position on women joining in front-line combat, I maintain that OLD-fashioned male chivalry is the VERY BEST thing to REDUCE undisciplined, exploitative sexual conduct where men and women are compelled to serve together closely. Another aspect of the sexual problem is FAVORITISM. Where promiscuity is common among personnel, there will be numerous cases of (1) superiors showing favoritism to subordinates who are sexually complaint; (2) subordinates offering sex to superiors in order to get special treatment on the job; and (3) perhaps most tragically, innocent persons being falsely accused of (1) or (2) by whoever doesn't like them.

By the way, it is true that the fitness standards are relaxed for women in the armed forces. They don't have to run as fast as men, or do as many situps and pushups, to achieve the same level of perceived fitness. I am well aware that there ARE women who are tremendously strong and athletic; but there's a sense in which other women who are NOT so strong are getting a free ride on the coattails of those women who do stand out as athletes.

[EveningStar]

What concerns me is how the "other side" views women in combat. Yes, it is important how we are perceived by the enemy. If our choice of front line soldiers or the way soldiers are used is perceived to be barbaric or shameful, it will factor into their willingness to concede defeat.

During the campaign against Denizulu, British Major Robert Baden-Powell finally routed the Zulu army. As the British pursued the Zulus up a rise, one of the women dropped a bundled baby, and the bundle began to roll down hill. Everyone stopped for a moment. The baby fell into the hands of the British. All the Zulus expected to see the usual tribal psy-ops of torturing the baby to strike fear into the enemy. Instead the Major picked up the baby and held it tenderly.

Chief Denizulu surrendered unconditionally. "Sir, you are an honorable man," he said. "There is no shame in surrender to you."

Every time commanders want their soldiers to HATE the other side so their efforts will be effective and heartless, they stress whatever differences they find. In World War I, it was that the "huns" raped women and bayonetted babies. In the Korean and Vietnam Wars, it was that the "commies" were Godless and that God and Satan were fighting to see who gets the world.

Having women in the front lines WOULD be used by the enemy to stir up hatred toward the government of the United States. It's not a question of IF but WHETHER THE COST IS JUSTIFIED.

Do I believe women capable of fighting on the front line. Of course I do. I absolutely do. It's not a matter of COULD but SHOULD. And it is absolutely untrue that the only important jobs in the military involve killing.

With that said, I'm not the Secretary of Defence. Just stating an opinion.

John

[Darth Sparhawk]

Sometimes women could be as good as men, but generally that is not the case. I will give you a short proof - sports. Rarely men and women race together and when they do, men are ususally stronger - look at car racing. So I don't support women in war. Actually, I hope that one day in he future neither men, nor women would have to fight :(

[Parthian King]

Having lately retired from the Navy, I can attest that unit effectiveness IS damaged by the number of women getting pregnant. And without taking any adamant position on women joining in front-line combat, I maintain that OLD-fashioned male chivalry is the VERY BEST thing to REDUCE undisciplined, exploitative sexual conduct where men and women are compelled to serve together closely. Another aspect of the sexual problem is FAVORITISM. Where promiscuity is common among personnel, there will be numerous cases of (1) superiors showing favoritism to subordinates who are sexually compliant; (2) subordinates offering sex to superiors in order to get special treatment on the job; and (3) perhaps most tragically, innocent persons being falsely accused of (1) or (2) by whoever doesn't like them.

By the way, it is true that the fitness standards are relaxed for women in the armed forces. They don't have to run as fast as men, or do as many situps and pushups, to achieve the same level of perceived fitness. I am well aware that there ARE women who are tremendously strong and athletic; but there's a sense in which other women who are NOT so strong are getting a free ride on the coattails of those women who do stand out as athletes.

This picture is precisely the one my son has given to me. It is a terrible drag on morale in the larger sense. And if I may add, he has told me that some women use the "get pregnant" card strategically to control their standing in the military and their obligation for duty.

Another factor is the competition between men for the sexual favors of women (or even the mere prospect of a romantic attachment) in their work areas/division. If one man outranks the other, and can exert pressure, it often happens that the man of lower rank ends up doing lousy duty (sailors have more colorful lnguage for describing it) as a result of a direct order that is given for no other reason but to get him out of the way, or as retaliation/jealousy over a woman who is a common interest to him and the higher ranking man (who is in a position to abuse his power). Since most of these things are of such a petty nature relative to the overall scheme of things, and even in the operation of a given unit, they go unnoticed and the mistreated people have little recourse. But that doesn't mean life isn't very difficult for them as a result.

Finally, there is the waste involved. My son has related to me a case where two people (a man and a woman) of rank equal to his own became romantically/sexually involved on the ship. The relationship made things very difficult for him in unit operations, so he reported it, though very carefully and in guarded terms. Yet the individuals involved were important to the operation of the unit, so superiors turned a blind eye. Eventually they were discovered by those higher still, and the grilling of the unit begand. Who knew about this, and didn't report it? Hence, not only were the two parties held accountable, but anyone who knew and didn't say anything. My son was saved by his having mentioned it, but what if he hadn't? It is no win: If he tells, he is a disloyal nark. If he doesn't, he faces possible discipline. This is a circumstance no one of that age should be placed in--the military and its responsiblities are hard enough as it is. In any case, the two young people are to be severely disciplined, lose rank and pay, and basically hamstring the whole unit in time of war due to their absence. All the time, effort, and money that went into training them is now lost--all because they were placed in a situation that could have and should have been avoided.

Men and women are equal in humanity, in imago dei, and in value before God. They are not the same in their makeup, and their differences are a powerful thing that must be respected and acknowledged if we don't want to end up looking like a bunch of tom fools.

[LifeMaiden]

I am continually struck by Lewis' prophetic wisdom, even in what would normally be considered "asides" in his rolling narratives. When through Father Christmas he makes the remark to Susan and Lucy about the grimness of women in combat, he is saying a great deal. Our generation is that which (for political reasons) mentions by name the 5 or 10 or 2 soldiers who have been killed in action that day. Lewis (and Tolkien, for that matter, with his comment on this being made through Eowyn) were of the generation that saw millions die in the Battle of the Somme, at Ypres, at Verdun, and (later) saw millions more die in the battles of the Second Great War. These are wars of publicly posted casualty lists and mass graves--for those fortunate enough to benefit from them. The difference in the scope of things does matter as one discusses these issues. It is the posture of a genteel Christian man who resists the idea of Eve carrying out the ugly business of war, something which is far more comprehensive and horrible than a few well-marked shafts from an arrow in a single cataclysmic battle. There is nothing romantic, dashing, or attractive about war, and Lewis is letting us know that even as he and Tolkien exalt the ideals over which just wars are fought.

I would that no women would ever fight, and however well they can fight is immaterial to me. On this point I am a "traditionalist," and, speaking on a societal level, I would prefer that certain roles be played because the sexes each have gifts that the other does not. Women make better healers of men than men make healers of women, in my view. For my part, I'd rather they stay back a represent a bloque of society that is unmarred, as much as possible, by direct contact with the ravages of war. God knows there have been countless times in history when God's fairest creatures have been unable to avoid these things, and if we can by our choice have them to avoid it, let it be so. If any sister here resents this, know that you are resenting that which comes from a heart of care for you.

On a purely practical note, my son has told me what it is like to have women and men together in close military quarters, and how hard it is on morale. I don't know which genius or committee came up with the bright idea of tossing men and women onto a ship and having them work shoulder to shoulder for months on end at sea, but I'd like to give them a piece of my mind. (The same can surely be said of every branch of the military.) What do you expect, to happen, you bunch of lamebrains? That they'll stick to checkers and hopscotch? When the women end up pregnant, and both sexes end up at Captain's Mast or worse, I suggest that the "equality" freaks that came up with the idea be thrown there too, to face equal punishment. Women and men are different, period. Those differences are not lost on them when they are placed in close quarters, under great duress, and at perhaps the loneliest times of their lives. I am not suggesting these people are not adults (though some only barely qualify for the legal definition of that term) and that they should not be held responsible for their action; I am saying that in the big picture, to put men and women in their sexual prime together under military circumstances is poor military strategy and makes sense only to a culture that is more concerned with political correctness than with winning wars.


Yes but that's part of the problem of old-fashioned chivalry though. You believe what a woman SHOULD and SHOULD NOT DO. I say if a woman wants to be a fireman, a doctor, a police officer, a CEO, or an officer in combat, so be it. If you had a daughter who wanted to join the military and be an officer, would you say, " No, because you're not supposed to do that. You should just stay home, be a mom, and forget your dreams."

Some women like myself do NOT care to really tend to the needs of others and have very little maternal instincts. As far as women getting pregnant in the navy or in other areas of the armed forces, shouldn't the blame partially be put on the men who got them pregnant in the first place? Or is it that old contention that says, " The men couldn't help themselves because they're men?"

I'm with Cyon here, believe it or not. :D I wanna be a Seal!!

[Samwise Gamgee]

Yet though some times Men are better than women at some things and sometimes women are better then men at things. It is all how they are tained and how good they want to be at a serten thing.

[LifeMaiden]

Same old argument goes for when women were said they couldn't 'hack it' in the military academies and everything else like the work place and most other professions. " They do a disservice, they shouldn't be there, this is a man's world not a woman's place, etc." Tiresome. Personally that's why I can't ever have seen myself joining the armed forces. If I couldn't kick some enemy butt, then there'd be no point.


Haha. I got ya, PK. :D


Do you really want to know why I wouldn't want to be there in the army? Hormones. EVERY MONTH. I'd have urge to fire every cannon and battleship gun there is at imaginary enemies. And I'm not calm. A bullet would fly past me I imagine and I'd be like, " AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"

[Malacandra]

Yes but that's part of the problem of old-fashioned chivalry though. You believe what a woman SHOULD and SHOULD NOT DO. I say if a woman wants to be a fireman, a doctor, a police officer, a CEO, or an officer in combat, so be it. If you had a daughter who wanted to join the military and be an officer, would you say, "No, because you're not supposed to do that. You should just stay home, be a mom, and forget your dreams."

No, I'd hope that she would be assessed on exactly the same terms as a man - by criteria that were relevant to the job she was to do, and not specially tailored to give a woman the same chance of passing as a man. I'd also hope that my son wasn't going to have to pay in blood for some woman's inability to do her job. Did you check out my link to Fred's article? He's an old curmudgeon, but those stats on the failure rate of women being assessed on their ability to carry a stretcher under simulated combat conditions were frightening.

Some women like myself do NOT care to really tend to the needs of others and have very little maternal instincts. As far as women getting pregnant in the navy or in other areas of the armed forces, shouldn't the blame partially be put on the men who got them pregnant in the first place? Or is it that old contention that says, "The men couldn't help themselves because they're men?"

Kipling knew about single men in barracks, too. If you put healthy young men and healthy young women in close proximity, the healthy young women are going to get laid - especially when they're outnumbered ten to one by the men. Shouldn't the blame partially be put on the men? Honey, who said it wasn't being? I've heard plenty of scandal about sergeant instructors getting sex out of female recruits in exchange for favours, and correspondingly little about female recruits getting unfair favours out of sergeant instructors in exchange for sex. I find seeking to transfer blame to men for women getting pregnant to be spineless and contemptible - in an era in which pretty much all rights concerning pregnancy are held by women, it wouldn't be asking too much to ask them to be responsible in proportion.

See, I don't see where you get to say "I wanna join the army! It's my lifelong dream! My life will be ruined if I can't!" with one breath and then "O noes! I'm pregnant! How could that have happened?" with the next. If an army career means as much as that to you then a spot of control over your reproductive system shouldn't be too much to ask.

I'm with Cyon here, believe it or not. :D I wanna be a Seal!!

Yeah, and then you go and contradict yourself with your next post in order to go "Gotcha!" at PK, and you yuk it up about women with PMS not being fit to trust with big guns. Classy. So on one side of this discussion we've got female wannabe fantasists flitting from one viewpoint to the opposite as it amuses them, and on the other we've got some men with first-hand experience of how having women in or near combat situations actually works out. I know which side attracts my sympathy.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I remember seeing an interesting commentary on the issue of women being placed deliberately* in combat by (of all things) a woman Israeli officer. For a while Israel permitted women to deliberately assigned to combat units, but then backed off. The reason was not chivalry or any kind of estimation of women's abilities, it was that they learned that when women are taken captive in war, it demoralizes the civilian population in a way that a man being taken captive does not. They found that if a village or community learned that a son was captured, they would join together and pray and hope, but if a daughter was captured, they would be distraught with anguish imagining the kind of treatment the woman was receiving at the hands of the enemy, and support for the defense effort suffered. Ultimately they decided that such distress was not worth it.

I thought that an interesting point.

-------------------------
*the "deliberate" distinction is important. If women are in the armed forces or even in the vicinity of armed conflict, there will come occasions when the tides of battle sweep around them even if they aren't intended to be "in combat".

[Olórin the Wise]

As PotW said, having a woman taken prisoner is far worse than having a man taken prisoner. Does anybody remember the Jessica Lynch thing from a few years ago?
Don't get me wrong, though, I do NOT sympathize with the opinion that women are somehow "less" than men because they aren't as strong. Women have the same human dignity as men, and the same intellectual capacity as men - they just weren't intended for the same physical jobs as men. Women are much better than men and some things, and vice versa, but I don't believe that women should fight.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

I will just say that I hope that any women in the military do not fight like the girls on the Airsoft team. :D

[Shadow Hawk]

God made women differently.......or at least I hope so. :D Men have been proven to be stronger than women. women are more limber than men but it does not mean they should fight beside men. another reason is that women have less blood than men. in other words if they get shot through the leg they are going to bleed out more quickly than men. In war there is the presence of adrenaline this can temporarily up the person's strenght. but, even then men are stronger. I'm not saying that women shouldn't serve, they should, it just we need to limit what areas.

[LifeMaiden]

God made women differently.......or at least I hope so. :D Men have been proven to be stronger than women. women are more limber than men but it does not mean they should fight beside men. another reason is that women have less blood than men. in other words if they get shot through the leg they are going to bleed out more quickly than men. In war there is the presence of adrenaline this can temporarily up the person's strenght. but, even then men are stronger. I'm not saying that women shouldn't serve, they should, it just we need to limit what areas.


I'm flexible, too LOLOL. But you know what one woman's response to that whole idea of women not being allowed in combat was? I think this was the gal that went to the Citadel ( not Shannon Faulkner, she couldn't even hack it the first DAY)...and graduated, the one I read about. She said women could stand a lot more pain than men, since they give birth. I'm not sure how relevant that would be in an argument about why women should, or should not, be in combat.

My main concern would be that let's say a woman soldier was being raped, beaten, or in extreme pain and screaming. That would rattle a lot of MEN at her side, and they may put themselves all in danger or risk because of being emotionally shaken by the brutality shown to a female soldier.

[LifeMaiden]

No, I'd hope that she would be assessed on exactly the same terms as a man - by criteria that were relevant to the job she was to do, and not specially tailored to give a woman the same chance of passing as a man. I'd also hope that my son wasn't going to have to pay in blood for some woman's inability to do her job. Did you check out my link to Fred's article? He's an old curmudgeon, but those stats on the failure rate of women being assessed on their ability to carry a stretcher under simulated combat conditions were frightening.



Kipling knew about single men in barracks, too. If you put healthy young men and healthy young women in close proximity, the healthy young women are going to get laid - especially when they're outnumbered ten to one by the men. Shouldn't the blame partially be put on the men? Honey, who said it wasn't being? I've heard plenty of scandal about sergeant instructors getting sex out of female recruits in exchange for favours, and correspondingly little about female recruits getting unfair favours out of sergeant instructors in exchange for sex. I find seeking to transfer blame to men for women getting pregnant to be spineless and contemptible - in an era in which pretty much all rights concerning pregnancy are held by women, it wouldn't be asking too much to ask them to be responsible in proportion.

See, I don't see where you get to say "I wanna join the army! It's my lifelong dream! My life will be ruined if I can't!" with one breath and then "O noes! I'm pregnant! How could that have happened?" with the next. If an army career means as much as that to you then a spot of control over your reproductive system shouldn't be too much to ask.



Yeah, and then you go and contradict yourself with your next post in order to go "Gotcha!" at PK, and you yuk it up about women with PMS not being fit to trust with big guns. Classy. So on one side of this discussion we've got female wannabe fantasists flitting from one viewpoint to the opposite as it amuses them, and on the other we've got some men with first-hand experience of how having women in or near combat situations actually works out. I know which side attracts my sympathy.


Clearly, you can't take a joke. I wasn't asking or looking for your sympathy. Especially that of some grumpy old math teacher. ;)

I'll quote you, in fact.

" Ok. I'll **** off now."

[Son of Adam]

OK, I'm going to stick my neck out here and make it a target to have my head severed from my shoulders.


Much of this comes down to two things: (1) Affirmative Action and (2) Abilities - physical as well as mental.

I believe that a woman can fight as well as a man in a war if she can meet the same requirements as a man does.

The problem is that not only in the military but in other positions as well such as firemen, police, etc., in order to comply with certain Affirmative Action percentages, the standards for becoming a fighting soldier, fireman, policeman, etc., have been lowered to accomodate a woman. This can put people's lives at risk. For example. There is a fire. I am inside a burning building filled with smoke and am unconcious because of the smoke and I need rescued. I weigh some 240-250 pounds and they send in a 105 pound woman to get me out. Now unless this woman has some real weight training behind her, she may not be able to lift me and carry me out thus causing the loss of my life and maybe hers as well.

If the woman can physically and mentally be able to do the job as well as a man without having standards lowered for her, then I say let her do the job she's trained for. Gender shouldn't enter into it is she is fully qualified.

Besides, I bet LifeMaiden could whip my butt any day of the week. :D ;)
My opinion only. Take it for what it's worth. Which ain't much probably. LOL

[LifeMaiden]

Well clearly weight isn't an indicator of strength, as we know...a five feet four in shape athletic woman :D, or a very thin, wiry man, can have more strength than a bigger person. But I don't think I'd be able to carry or lift someone who weighs 200 pounds :D .


My major concern with this issue of women in the military, women as firefighters and police officers...all jobs that have been traditionally held by men...is what if a woman truly wants to be there in those respective jobs and professions? Sad to say, do we simply dismiss her dreams as being unrealistic because for whatever reason, she 'shouldn't be there' for old-fashioned notions that a woman simply should be exposed to those kinds of physical and mental rigors, or say the truth, that she isn't physically able to handle it?


So my question would be to the MEN here:

What if you had a daughter who wanted to be West Point graduate, or going beyond this military issue, wanted to be in a job profession that was dominated by men, and required physical strength and stamina...such as firefighting or police work? Would you honestly tell her, " No, I think you'd be better off somewhere else and I won't support you?"

[Son of Adam]

Tell her that I wouldn't support her? No. I would sit down and go over a lot of things with her however. I would make sure she understood the job and the requirements that would go along with it. I would explain to her or ask her if she felt she could carry a 200 pound person to get them out of harms way. Not to judge her, but make her understand just what was as stake here - someone's life.

When a child, whether male or female, reaches a certain age we, as parents, need to let go somewhat. We can advise. We can counsel them. But we should never withdraw our love and support for them as far as being a part of the family is concerned. I do know a lot of women who are highly qualified as firefighters, policewomen, truckdrivers, warehouse workers, soldiers who can do the jobs and meet the same qualifications as men. I just don't believe that standards should be lowered for women. If women want to do those jobs that men normally perform, then they should be required to meet the same job standards and requirements as the men. If they can't, then they don't belong in that position.

[Ephinie]

I woner how many women would still WANT to be in the military if they knew they would have to meet the same physical requirements that the men meet...

I, personally, could not join the military because of my asthma. If I did not have asthma, then I have no doubt that I could meet the same requirements if I had the motivation to do it (and with a heck of a lot of hard work and conditioning). But I don't see myself as having the motivation to do it, to be quite honest. It just isn't my cup of tea.

[Ephinie]

I am continually struck by Lewis' prophetic wisdom, even in what would normally be considered "asides" in his rolling narratives. When through Father Christmas he makes the remark to Susan and Lucy about the grimness of women in combat, he is saying a great deal.I was not actually going to comment on this (because there are a few people who I respect enough that I naturally do not want to contradict them), but something about it has been bugging me. The point you bring out about Father Christmas's comment saying that battles are ugly when women fight is good...

But then how do you reconcile that line of thinking with Lewis's later book, A Horse and His Boy, where we see Lucy going into battle just like a man. Then we have Prince Corin's comment that Queen Lucy is just as good as a man - or at any rate as good as a boy - in battle?

[Parthian King]

I was not actually going to comment on this (because there are a few people who I respect enough that I naturally do not want to contradict them), but something about it has been bugging me. The point you bring out about Father Christmas's comment saying that battles are ugly when women fight is good...

But then how do you reconcile that line of thinking with Lewis's later book, A Horse and His Boy, where we see Lucy going into battle just like a man. Then we have Prince Corin's comment that Queen Lucy is just as good as a man - or at any rate as good as a boy - in battle?

Well, if it was bugging you I'm glad you brought it up! Obviously Lewis has women go to battle--the Horse and His Boy reference isn't even necessary. He wouldn't give them if they weren't intended to be used, and in Prince Caspian Susan uses her bow, albeit non-lethally.

These are children's stories, and Lewis generally maintains an equal girl/boy ratio between his protagonists for the sake of his audience. Obviously, his female protagonists are going to be part of the action or a big part of his reasoning for writing (i.e., delighting children of all stripes) is lost. My very point is that while building his story this way (which is not surprising) he throws in Fr. Christmas's remark about women in battle (which sort of is). My reflection before and now is that girls with weapons is a concession on Lewis' part that stands opposed to what he clearly considers his ideal--which is seen (for example) in Peter's rescue of his sisters through the rather gory slaying of the wolf.

But I would like to address something that LM has stated a few times: That matter of the dreams and aspirations of a beloved daughter (or sister, or friend) who wants to accomplish something in the military. Here I think the discussion becomes much more comprehensive, because I consider the very concept of a woman dreaming of military prowess to be incongruous with God's highest plans, even in a fallen world where war is a present reality. It is at the end of an extended societal process that has gone on for years that we find this phenomenon. I don't have any daughters, but considering that West Point is a quality university, and that there are many roles a woman could play outside of combabt in the military, I admit it would be hard to resist her pleas for approval and support should she set her sights on such a thing. But I say this as a concession along the lines that I have already referred to. I can wish for a more genteel society in which such dreams do not occur to women, just as other dreams do not occur to men (that do these days). Things are rather mixed up, and while some good can be found in that mix, there's a lot of confusion, too.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Notice that Lucy was "back" with the archers at that battle - the same place Susan would have been. The implication is that "fighting" the way Fr. Christmas was using it meant "hand-to-hand fighting".

The real struggle with this discussion is that the question isn't framed the way I think Lewis would have asked it. The question of whether women should be allowed in combat is one thing. The question of whether they should be in combat is a totally different question. Let me attempt to explain.

When someone is forbidden (or allowed, or commanded) to do something, that implies that the will of another is involved. If I want to do something but some other party forbids me, then it raises questions of authority and submission (does that person have the right to forbid me? Do I recognize that right and submit my will?), intent (why is that person forbidding me? Is it a valid reason?), and power (can that person coerce me if necessary?) To ask whether women should be allowed in combat raises these questions and more.

The question of whether women should be in combat hinges on a concept that's almost alien to the modern mind, particularly with respect to humans: the idea of telos. Telos is the purpose or function of a thing; i.e. what it is made for, the purpose of its existence. We can understand telos in terms of things like machines, but since we moderns have redefined humans, we've lost the concept for ourselves. When we understood ourselves as creations of God for a purpose, we could easily answer what our telos was: one catechism summarized it well as "To glorify God and enjoy Him forever". But now that we think of ourselves as accidental machines, adrift in a meaningless universe, the entire idea of telos - existing with an end in mind - goes right out the window. Most modern and postmodern thinkers consider the concept of a purpose for man to be at best a pleasant illusion and at worst a dangerous deception.

Once you introduce the idea of telos for the human race at large, then you open the door to telos for the sexes. This is what I think the classically trained Lewis was speaking from when he put those words in Fr. Christmas' mouth. He was not so much saying that women should not be allowed to fight as he was saying women were not made for (i.e. their telos was not) battle. In fact, I think this was part of how he was trying to portray Jadis, from Charn to the Beruna battlefield: as a woman who had perverted the image of womanhood by directly embracing warfare, tyranny, and brute strength.

It is this appeal to telos that is, for me, the bedrock of the question. It is not so much that women are unable to fight, or can't be trained, or aren't strong enough, or don't have a stake in the struggle. It's that when possible, women should be kept out of battle because that's not what they're made for. Men fight so that women don't have to. A woman fighting is a bad sign, because it means all the men are dead or overcome. Women are to be protected, to make homes and communities, because that is their telos. This was a point that Chesterton made: women are the bedrock of civilization. Not just childbearing mothers, either - elderly women, young women, servant women (e.g. nuns), all sorts of women. Civilization is what they make; men just go out from there to do their lesser things and come back to the important thing, the center. One of the things they go out to do is fight in order to protect that center.

[Parthian King]

In fact, I think this was part of how he was trying to portray Jadis, from Charn to the Beruna battlefield: as a woman who had perverted the image of womanhood by directly embracing warfare, tyranny, and brute strength.

Actually, I had thought of this but did not give it voice. This is very well put, and rather to the point.

[Ephinie]

The question of whether women should be in combat hinges on a concept that's almost alien to the modern mind, particularly with respect to humans: the idea of telos. Telos is the purpose or function of a thing; i.e. what it is made for, the purpose of its existence. We can understand telos in terms of things like machines, but since we moderns have redefined humans, we've lost the concept for ourselves. When we understood ourselves as creations of God for a purpose, we could easily answer what our telos was: one catechism summarized it well as "To glorify God and enjoy Him forever". But now that we think of ourselves as accidental machines, adrift in a meaningless universe, the entire idea of telos - existing with an end in mind - goes right out the window. Most modern and postmodern thinkers consider the concept of a purpose for man to be at best a pleasant illusion and at worst a dangerous deception.

Once you introduce the idea of telos for the human race at large, then you open the door to telos for the sexes. This is what I think the classically trained Lewis was speaking from when he put those words in Fr. Christmas' mouth. He was not so much saying that women should not be allowed to fight as he was saying women were not made for (i.e. their telos was not) battle. In fact, I think this was part of how he was trying to portray Jadis, from Charn to the Beruna battlefield: as a woman who had perverted the image of womanhood by directly embracing warfare, tyranny, and brute strength.

It is this appeal to telos that is, for me, the bedrock of the question. It is not so much that women are unable to fight, or can't be trained, or aren't strong enough, or don't have a stake in the struggle. It's that when possible, women should be kept out of battle because that's not what they're made for. Men fight so that women don't have to. A woman fighting is a bad sign, because it means all the men are dead or overcome. Women are to be protected, to make homes and communities, because that is their telos. This was a point that Chesterton made: women are the bedrock of civilization. Not just childbearing mothers, either - elderly women, young women, servant women (e.g. nuns), all sorts of women. Civilization is what they make; men just go out from there to do their lesser things and come back to the important thing, the center. One of the things they go out to do is fight in order to protect that center.I still have a hard time imaging that men were made to fight either... or that their telos, or purpose, was to fight each other. I think it's an unfortunate consequence of the fall that anyone has to fight each other in battle.

Given the fact that battle is a result of being a fallen race in the first place, I still can't find the justificiation to protect women from combat but not men. I can understand protecting children from combat (because that one's self-evident), but not adult women. It's just that women (and men also) have shown what they can do when in times of crisis, but the crisis would never happen in the first place if humans weren't sinful. So how do we get the ideal that women form the center of a society while men protect that center if that center would never be threatened in the first place if things were, in fact, ideal?

EDIT:
Also... a question. PoTW mentioned in - I think - the False Images of Beauty thread the little scene between Lucy and Aslan in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader where Lucy almost said that spell to make her more beautiful than Susan. We get from that as well as from other elements from other books that Susan was generally considered to be the more beautiful of the two. Then we also have Corin mentioning that Susan always stayed at home like an ordinary grown-up woman. Do you think that Lewis is making a connection between feminine beauty and traditional roles? Like, is he saying that it is basically more beautiful to remain in a traditional role while Lucy is not as beautiful partially because her unconventionality?

[Copperfox]

I doubt very much that Lewis had in mind equating Lucy's plainer outward looks with unconventionality as such. I do believe that he had in mind a simple inside-versus-outside contrast: Lucy was less attractive to the eye, but in the end she was a better person than her elder sister.

[Malacandra]

Clearly, you can't take a joke. I wasn't asking or looking for your sympathy. Especially that of some grumpy old math teacher. ;)

I'll quote you, in fact.

" Ok. I'll **** off now."

It is to laugh. Not all who quote stats are math teachers. Excuse me for dragging an argument into this argument of yours, don't trouble yourself answering it. :rolleyes:

[Shadow Hawk]

I'm flexible, too LOLOL. But you know what one woman's response to that whole idea of women not being allowed in combat was? I think this was the gal that went to the Citadel ( not Shannon Faulkner, she couldn't even hack it the first DAY)...and graduated, the one I read about. She said women could stand a lot more pain than men, since they give birth. I'm not sure how relevant that would be in an argument about why women should, or should not, be in combat.

My main concern would be that let's say a woman soldier was being raped, beaten, or in extreme pain and screaming. That would rattle a lot of MEN at her side, and they may put themselves all in danger or risk because of being emotionally shaken by the brutality shown to a female soldier.


you should read ummmmm... what was that book....Merc...or....Mercs something like that it is about a guy who can stick a sharp spoke axle through the skin at the neck and hang a bucket of water on it, or have a Hummvee roll over him. when he was training recruits if they did not do ex: a high kick to the chest he would show them how but he also sent them to the hospital.

[LifeMaiden]

I doubt very much that Lewis had in mind equating Lucy's plainer outward looks with unconventionality as such. I do believe that he had in mind a simple inside-versus-outside contrast: Lucy was less attractive to the eye, but in the end she was a better person than her elder sister.



I do agree with that. In fact I give CS Lewis much more credit for having more female characters of equal standing with the males. Every hero is paired with a heroine....the two Pevensies, Peter and Edmund, with their two sisters, Susan and Lucy, Eustace and Jill, Polly and Digory. In fact clearly, the girls are on equal

I won't go into discussion about CS Lewis putting Jadis out there as a character that shows fallen womanhood, because I don't agree because a woman wants to be a ruler, she's fallen. That's reading a little too much into the wicked witch character. Every fairy tale or story has one...and to me she just represents evil.

On a different note, great queens of the world such as Elizabeth the First by that token would be considered against the 'norm'.







And other than NightMystic and PK, none of the men here have answered my question about what you would tell your daughters if they wanted to enter a profession that you felt were better suited for men, such as firefighting, becoming a West Point graduate, or a police officer. Would you discourage your daughter from pursuing such professions or not? And conversely, let's say your son wanted to do something that you considered untraditional for a MAN, such as becoming a nurse, or a dancer. Would you consider that something that was too 'feminine' for a man to do, because as a nurse, he would have to encompass the traditional female role of caregiving? Or as a dancer, might be 'unfit' for that profession because it's largely dominated by women?

[Ephinie]

When I first started working the job I have now at the security office, Chief told me that he knew I would quit within a week because a woman can't do the job. They always wimp out.

I've been there for four years, and now he's saying how much he wishes more women would apply for the job.

[broken.]

When I first started working the job I have now at the security office, Chief told me that he knew I would quit within a week because a woman can't do the job. They always wimp out.

I've been there for four years, and now he's saying how much he wishes more women would apply for the job.

Way to be a revolutionary... ;)

[Copperfox]

LifeMaiden, I'm glad you mentioned the misuse of women's fortitude in pregnancy as supposedly making them warriors.

That nonsense was in Kevin Costner's politically-correct "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves." Little John's wife claimed that the mere fact of having given birth multiple times, all by itself, qualified her to go into combat action beside her husband. (The movie had never given any indication that she had any sort of martial training.)

As for if my daughter had wanted to be a firefighter or suchlike: I would certainly have talked it over with her very seriously, making sure she understood all the implications, but I would not have said, "You can't do that because you're a girl." One thing I _would_ have said would be, "Don't try to have it both ways; don't demand special privileges and easier tasks, then ALSO boast that you have equalled the men in every way."

Catwoman, as played by Michelle Pfeiffer in "Batman Returns," tried to have it both ways. She attacked Batman without provocation; when he threw her down on her keester in self-defense, she scolded him for using force on a woman; and when he hesitated, she attacked him again. (Being no slave to political correctness, Batman gave her what she had coming for that.)

[Ephinie]

Way to be a revolutionary... ;)Yeah, well we both know that being a rent-a-cop isn't exactly a hard job. It's definitely nowhere near equal to being a police officer.

[Malacandra]

I do agree with that. In fact I give CS Lewis much more credit for having more female characters of equal standing with the males. Every hero is paired with a heroine....the two Pevensies, Peter and Edmund, with their two sisters, Susan and Lucy, Eustace and Jill, Polly and Digory. In fact clearly, the girls are on equal

I won't go into discussion about CS Lewis putting Jadis out there as a character that shows fallen womanhood, because I don't agree because a woman wants to be a ruler, she's fallen. That's reading a little too much into the wicked witch character. Every fairy tale or story has one...and to me she just represents evil.

On a different note, great queens of the world such as Elizabeth the First by that token would be considered against the 'norm'.







And other than NightMystic and PK, none of the men here have answered my question about what you would tell your daughters if they wanted to enter a profession that you felt were better suited for men, such as firefighting, becoming a West Point graduate, or a police officer. Would you discourage your daughter from pursuing such professions or not? And conversely, let's say your son wanted to do something that you considered untraditional for a MAN, such as becoming a nurse, or a dancer. Would you consider that something that was too 'feminine' for a man to do, because as a nurse, he would have to encompass the traditional female role of caregiving? Or as a dancer, might be 'unfit' for that profession because it's largely dominated by women?

Yeah, isn't it annoying when you volunteer some points for consideration and people just ignore them? :rolleyes:


:D

[LifeMaiden]

LifeMaiden, I'm glad you mentioned the misuse of women's fortitude in pregnancy as supposedly making them warriors.

That nonsense was in Kevin Costner's politically-correct "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves." Little John's wife claimed that the mere fact of having given birth multiple times, all by itself, qualified her to go into combat action beside her husband. (The movie had never given any indication that she had any sort of martial training.)

As for if my daughter had wanted to be a firefighter or suchlike: I would certainly have talked it over with her very seriously, making sure she understood all the implications, but I would not have said, "You can't do that because you're a girl." One thing I _would_ have said would be, "Don't try to have it both ways; don't demand special privileges and easier tasks, then ALSO boast that you have equalled the men in every way."

Catwoman, as played by Michelle Pfeiffer in "Batman Returns," tried to have it both ways. She attacked Batman without provocation; when he threw her down on her keester in self-defense, she scolded him for using force on a woman; and when he hesitated, she attacked him again. (Being no slave to political correctness, Batman gave her what she had coming for that.)


I had totally forgotten about that Costner movie...I remember I didn't like it. But I DO remember the part where Little John's wife screamed something about " Hey I gave birth eight times.." in regards to going into battle as to why should could 'stand the pain.'..she had given birth to another son in that movie too.

Catwoman played by Halle Berry DIDN'T try to have it both ways in the movie CATWOMAN. She didn't attack anyone without provocation, and in the end, she walked away WITHOUT the guy ( Benjamin Bratt) because she had a lot more things she needed to accomplish without settling down first. She fought evil. So apparently that was a very different version of Michelle's Catwoman.

[LifeMaiden]

Yeah, isn't it annoying when you volunteer some points for consideration and people just ignore them? :rolleyes:


:D


Especially when someone tells me I dragged them into an argument when this person KNOWS, as a woman, I weigh only 115, and there's no way I truly have the strength to drag YOUR butt into it. :D

[ElectricJello]

The reason why women are not allowed in combat is not because they can't withstand the heat, but because of 2 reasons.

1) Because women usually find it harder to shoot children. This has been proven in the shooting practices. Whenever a shorter target comes up, women will 9 out of 10 times, hesitate to shoot it.

2) Because of the men. If a whole bunch of men were about to die, and only one woman was, they would usually jump to save the woman, other than saving the other guys.

I wish women were allowed in combat though. I don't think that it seems quite fair that men can and women can't.

[Copperfox]

There's a third reason. Do you have any idea just how much WEIGHT a modern soldier has to carry on his body? There are some women with the upper-body strength to manage the load, but they are in the minority--so much so, that if women in combat became commonplace, many women might rush to enlist _assuming_ they could manage the physical exertions, only to prove incapable and have to be withdrawn from combat duty after all.

[Shadow Hawk]

Yep, and I believe the weight a marine has to carry while swimming is between 60-80 pounds.

most people can barely swim with clothes on. for me that easy, but to others it's hard.

[LifeMaiden]

A little off key here, but I was paid the highest compliment at least in terms of fitness by an older gentleman some years ago at my gym. He's a West Point graduate, a Vietnam Veteran, and in incredibly great shape for 64 years old...better shape than most men half his age. He had given me the requirements for a woman to pass the physical test ( now, of course, it HAS been lowered for women, especially in the area of upper body strength) and I found that a real challenge to accomplish.

I was, however, able to do it, and I even had this gentleman observe me. He was pretty darn impressed, and said, " You've got some serious strength and stamina." We did not get into whether or not women should be allowed in combat. But his compliment was one of the most memorable I've received. And to this day, yes, I can still meet the requirements for a woman to get into the USMA, even at age 38.


I wanted to challenge myself and once put 70 pounds of weights in a backpack on my back to see if I could do that French Legion requirement, where they have to run an hour in the hot desert sun, and I didn't make it very far.


I am my own woman warrior, and for now, that's good enough.

[LifeMaiden]

There's a third reason. Do you have any idea just how much WEIGHT a modern soldier has to carry on his body? There are some women with the upper-body strength to manage the load, but they are in the minority--so much so, that if women in combat became commonplace, many women might rush to enlist _assuming_ they could manage the physical exertions, only to prove incapable and have to be withdrawn from combat duty after all.

Well that sounds like Shannon Faulkner, the first woman who got into the Citadel. I could not believe what she did...the first day of training, she collapses after a few pushups. And she was overweight by about 30 pounds. What made me mad about that was...if you're gonna say that women CAN really hack it at that school, at least have the stamina to prove it.

[Shadow Hawk]

look we're not saying you shouldn't, but there are things that only men can do and vise versa. being on the front lines is not where a woman should be. because not only would have not carry a rifle, but ammo, sidearm, knives, first aid, and body armor. this is just some of the things you would have to carry. In WWII average weight was 120pounds. I know that there are some who can do it but is other things to look at. A fourth reason is what they would do to you if you were captured.

[ArrowsOfSilver]

Some women are stronger than men.
Sexism is digusting and should never hold anyone back.

[Shadow Hawk]

No, but there are some things that women should not do.

[ArrowsOfSilver]

Congratulations, you just contradicted yourself.

[Shadow Hawk]

I was saying that Sexism should not hold anyone back.

And no wwomen are not stronger than men ever see a woman lift 800 pounds?

[ArrowsOfSilver]

Yes.
My dance teacher lifted 832 pounds with her legs.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

I still say that they shouldn't be allowed if they fight like the girls on our Air Soft Team. :D

[ArrowsOfSilver]

You've obviously never fought a girl like me.

[Copperfox]

I expect that ShadowHawk meant lift with the arms. No amount of ability to lift with the legs would by itself guarantee that the female soldier would have the indispensable UPPER-body strength to handle major burdens of guns, ammunition, and equipment--items that would have to be HANDLED AND USED, not just lifted straight up. Or would that dance teacher be expected to load rounds into a howitzer with her toes?

As for the charge of self-contradiction: if I understood ShadowHawk right, in the context of what we are discussing, I don't think he meant that there is no individual woman anywhere who can perform all the physical exertions a soldier has to do. Of course there are some; but maintaining a viable military force is not only a matter of listing stats for each individual in isolation. It's a matter of what policies will work for the whole force. I believe ShadowHawk has in mind that the number of individual women who could be all that a frontline soldier MUST be is not great enough that their use in combat would bring enough benefit to offset the disadvantages. One disadvantage, already discussed before now, is the sexual misconduct that results when men and women are sardine-canned together.

When I was a submarine sailor, I met Navy females who were in a feminist snit about why they couldn't be part of a submarine crew. None of them had lived 24 hours a day on board a submerged submarine, where everyone is positively stuffed into everyone else's nostrils and you can't go out on a weather deck for fresh air. The forced intimacy of submarine life makes it insane to mix the sexes there--although, in the name of political correctness RATHER THAN practicality, I was told that the new Virginia-class attack boats would be built with separate female living quarters. I used to tell people that if you could find 140 women who among them possessed all the abilities needed in a submarine crew, it would not bother me a bit if they sent out a submarine with ONLY women on board. It was just mixed crews that were insane. I was not trying to hold women down, but I was thinking about what would best achieve the ACTUAL MISSION of protecting the United States, as opposed to the mission of stroking the egos of pouting feminists.

ShadowHawk, have I read you right? It's not a matter of suppressing women, but a matter of knowing that the SURVIVAL of Western civilization calls for defense policies that actually WORK, not for policies that satisfy 60-year-old leftwing Congresswomen who never heard a gunshot themselves. So our shared concern for the necessary COLLECTIVE effect is no contradiction of the principle of wanting individuals male or female to have a fair opportunity. It is not self-contradiction to have a heirarchy of priorities, where sometimes one desirable thing must give place to a higher necessity.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

You've obviously never fought a girl like me.
Oh. not in the sense of physical, but mentally yes. :D

She was indeed fercious, but I bested her with my laugh. Love Conquers all. :D

[ArrowsOfSilver]

It is ridiculous to classify anyone by anything but whether they are boring or not. :)


(Ben, you absurd ladies man.)

[LifeMaiden]

Is it a matter of sexism, traditionalism, or just realism? Some women will say it's sexist, some men will argue it has nothing to do with that, and still others will say that realistically, a woman simply is not equipped physically or emotionally to do battle.


Should a woman NOT be surprised if she gets sexually harassed or assaulted in the Armed Forces? In other words, if she's there, should she just tough it out with the guys and expect to get harassed?


Here's the West Point test divided for men and women:

http://admissions.usma.edu/Prospectus/step_CFA_2a.cfm

[Copperfox]

I can't speak for the other branches of service; but for most of my Navy career, thanks to the Tailhook scandal, we were given lectures against sexism and sexual harassment about fifty times a week. There is so much vigilance against sexual harassment in the Navy that there is as much danger of a MAN being FALSELY accused and the accusation being believed, as of a woman being really harassed and the harasser getting away with it.

[LifeMaiden]

I can't speak for the other branches of service; but for most of my Navy career, thanks to the Tailhook scandal, we were given lectures against sexism and sexual harassment about fifty times a week. There is so much vigilance against sexual harassment in the Navy that there is as much danger of a MAN being FALSELY accused and the accusation being believed, as of a woman being really harassed and the harasser getting away with it.


Sexual harassment can also vary from woman to woman. Some women might get offended by men's magazines lying around, which I wouldn't calls sexual harassment, but some women might freak out.

[pegasus62]

I'm going to have to say no on that one. No, women should not fight. I think they should be allowed to work in medical and other areas for the troops, but
1. Men are usually able to face emotional losses of people they know better.
2. Women are more scarred by the visual bloodshed of combat then men, who 'block it out'.
3. Women are made for other purposes-and we have enough men in the military so we do not need more-and can help in other ways.
4. Women in armed forces are regarded as one of the men, so their physical goals have to be the same. This is more of a struggle for women then men, added to the mental strain.

All these aspects I agree with, and think they are valid.
There's my opinion.

[Queen Swanwhite]

I'm going to have to say no on that one. No, women should not fight. I think they should be allowed to work in medical and other areas for the troops, but
1. Men are usually able to face emotional losses of people they know better.
2. Women are more scarred by the visual bloodshed of combat then men, who 'block it out'.
3. Women are made for other purposes-and we have enough men in the military so we do not need more-and can help in other ways.
4. Women in armed forces are regarded as one of the men, so their physical goals have to be the same. This is more of a struggle for women then men, added to the mental strain.

All these aspects I agree with, and think they are valid.
There's my opinion.

Hmm, well

1. I think that women are able to deal with loss just as well as men..we have to go through people dieing too.

2. I know women who are extremely strong, and who don't scream at the sight of blood. That's steryotyping.

3. Who said men are made for military purposes?

4. I agree with the fact that men, MAY be more fit or able to fight, but women can cope with the "mental strain" better than men, I can assure you.

[Shadow Hawk]

Tell me then have your freinds seen someone's head blown off? and not only that but kept running? I have seen maybe one or two women that didn't freak out over blood....but both were doctors.

[ElectricJello]

I'm going to have to say no on that one. No, women should not fight. I think they should be allowed to work in medical and other areas for the troops, but
1. Men are usually able to face emotional losses of people they know better.
2. Women are more scarred by the visual bloodshed of combat then men, who 'block it out'.
3. Women are made for other purposes-and we have enough men in the military so we do not need more-and can help in other ways.
4. Women in armed forces are regarded as one of the men, so their physical goals have to be the same. This is more of a struggle for women then men, added to the mental strain.

All these aspects I agree with, and think they are valid.
There's my opinion.
This sure seems like a lot of stereotyping. Not all women are like that. The ones that enlist should be ready for that type of stuff.

[LifeMaiden]

Tell me then have your freinds seen someone's head blown off? and not only that but kept running? I have seen maybe one or two women that didn't freak out over blood....but both were doctors.


Yeah, but conversely, I know TONS of men who freak out at the sight of blood. I don't think that's an issue for a lot of women. I have a friend who's a nurse and she said that more MEN faint and fall down when she takes their blood. I don't really believe that's one of the more valid arguments for keeping women out of combat. I personally do NOT freak out at the sight of blood.


At the Citadel, Nancy Mace, the author of that book I read, said that when she got her period and didn't notice the blood on her white uniform pants, she said that a guy almost passed out upon seeing it.

Maybe it's more of a better argument to say that a man could not stand the sight of a WOMAN bleeding in any way, especially when she's wounded.

Men may block out the trauma of war, but that doesn't mean that they're not going to suffer post traumatic stress syndrome or have other serious problems when they come back to civilian life. Women are emotionally a lot stronger than you give them credit for.

[Queen Swanwhite]

Tell me then have your freinds seen someone's head blown off? and not only that but kept running? I have seen maybe one or two women that didn't freak out over blood....but both were doctors.

Who said men have only seen their friends heads blown off? It's a steryotype to say that women freak out. Men do too.

You think that women ALWAYS freak out at the sight of blood? I can tell you I don't. Doctors you say? That must make them very tough, tougher than normal women anyway... :rolleyes:

[Copperfox]

I refer you all back to my earlier postings on this thread. For my part, nowhere did I base my misgivings about female soldiers on women's emotional states. I was, after all, married to a nurse who had once headed an emergency room while a cops-and-robbers gunfight was going on RIGHT OUTSIDE.

[Shadow Hawk]

Yes some men freakout as well...sometimes it is referd to as shell shock...and they are pulled off the front lines. the thing is women are different as we all know. :D men just don't show or share the horrific things they've seen. like the one major on the Enola Gay. he went insane for a few years. but, other times it is turned into battle rage. I'm not saying that there are not any women that can do it. It is just the military is trying to protect them from things some men go through.

[Gryphon]

I actually asked my brother (a soldier) this question and I believe what he said was true. He told me that he didn't care whether or not he was in Iraq with a female, he just didn't want them to miss their mark. As long as they could hold their own, he didn't mind.

Now, as it happens for us civilians, I think women should be kept in the military because there are things in the military that women do that men can't. For example, in Iraq its illegal there for a man to touch another man's wife. So what would happen if a male soldier searched a woman for weapons? Her husband would be incredibly offended. But if there's a female soldier there, they don't have to worry about that controversy.

It all depends on the woman though. Some women just cant handle it, but I don't think that the Army would send out women into combat unless they knew that they could handle all of the ops...

The Army even has a special band of women called "The Lionesses" an elite group of women who go into combat. These women have done a great good and I respect and honor and support them fighting for our country. So should you.

[Shadow Hawk]

Is there a book on them or something? Yes I agree there are things women can do and men can't. But, also there are things that men can do and women can't.

[Gryphon]

Is there a book on them or something? Yes I agree there are things women can do and men can't. But, also there are things that men can do and women can't.
Still doesn't change my point... women are useful. Period.

Besides, I don't think there's a book on them. But I've read some articles and my brother told me about them.

[LifeMaiden]

Okay so let me get this clear though...women are not allowed PERIOD to join the special forces, right, like the Seals or the Green Berets? That's still all men?

[ElectricJello]

Okay so let me get this clear though...women are not allowed PERIOD to join the special forces, right, like the Seals or the Green Berets? That's still all men?
Yep, thats right.
I always wanted to be a Navy Seal, but...yeah, women aren't allowed.

[Shadow Hawk]

Because of weight and other factors...yes, women aren't allowed in the special forces. but, they can join the Rangers, Marines, Army, and Navy. :D

[Lady Eve]

There are many tough women out there, and if they're willing to face the fight... then they should be allowed in front-line combat with men. If I ever joined the army, I'd go deep into my point... but right now just as a general overview, I believe that if a woman tries hard enough, she can acheive anything that a man can. Since some people are against the idea of women fighting... why not propose a choice? and let a woman choose to be in combat or not (I personally, would think a choice is a little unfair) but, it would make some people happy. It should be up to the person themself to decide their life, not the goverment's.

Tell me then have your freinds seen someone's head blown off? and not only that but kept running? I have seen maybe one or two women that didn't freak out over blood....but both were doctors.

I can tell you one thing, a lot of my friends freak out over blood... I don't, ever. I haven't personally witnessed someone getting their head blown off, but if I was in the middle of a war, I could deal with it and get over it. Sure, some women can be more emotional but we don't have to be. A lot of women probably wouldn't survive in combat... but if you are a girly-girl or someone who is going to freak out over blood then I don't think your going to be joining the army anytime soon anyways!

Just my thoughts :)
~Eve

[ElectricJello]

There are many tough women out there, and if they're willing to face the fight... then they should be allowed in front-line combat with men. If I ever joined the army, I'd go deep into my point... but right now just as a general overview, I believe that if a woman tries hard enough, she can acheive anything that a man can. Since some people are against the idea of women fighting... why not propose a choice? and let a woman choose to be in combat or not (I personally, would think a choice is a little unfair) but, it would make some people happy. It should be up to the person themself to decide their life, not the goverment's.

That sounds about right! :D

[Shadow Hawk]

yes, some can and have. but the mental shock to both men and women cannot be with held forever.
but the choice of being in combat and not is up to your superiors...unless your the commmander. :D I agree that women should fight for what they believe, love, and their country....but sometimes it is best for women to not do some things...and men other things, and so on.

[Lady Eve]

yes, some can and have. but the mental shock to both men and women cannot be with held forever.

Very true, death is hard for everyone... but that just doesn't neccesarily make it harder to deal with for women :rolleyes:

[ElectricJello]

Very true, death is hard for everyone... but that just doesn't neccesarily make it harder to deal with for women :rolleyes:
I agree with that. Why should men get to do something and women can't do it?

[Shadow Hawk]

men can't do everying thing...like cooking. :D and women can't do every thing either.

[LifeMaiden]

men can't do everying thing...like cooking. :D and women can't do every thing either.

The men in my life did all the cooking. Even my husband. He was a great cook actually. I can't cook worth a darn.

[Shadow Hawk]

i can cook some things..............then I burn others. :D

[inkspot]

I bake, my husband cooks. It works.
:)

[Shadow Hawk]

See......some things ya'll can do.....other you can't same for us men. :D

[LifeMaiden]

Okay, so here's the real question. Is it that women SHOULDN'T ( morally) or CAN'T ( physically) fight in combat? One or the other, or BOTH? They are not the same, by the way.

[Shadow Hawk]

the true answer would be up to that person......Some women can both morally and physically can fight in combat... But, they will not fit in everywhere.

[Sain]

The battlefield is not a place for women. A lot of people who want women fighting say so more out of sentiment than logic. I can objectively say that men are more physically built for combat, running, and lifting things (like a wounded ally). Plus, a man is far less likely to get raped if captured by the enemy. A clichéd, but true, argument against it is that some chivalrous men will go out of their way to protect the female soldiers -- and get themselves wounded or killed in the process. And to be blatantly honest, I find the notion to be grossly unfeminine.

[Shadow Hawk]

umm......that's why they not allowed in some places.

[Copperfox]

As I said before when this thread was more active, there certainly are SOME women who are capable of doing the things a combat soldier must do; but there are not AS MANY of them as feminists want us to believe. And if it becomes "normal" to put women in front-line combat, political pressure for compliance is certain to result in many women who are NOT suited for it being sent to the front also. Then both they, and the men, will suffer for it.

On the other hand, I should mention to ShadowHawk that I am a man AND a proficient cook.


Joseph Ravitts, author of "Southward the Tigers"

[EveningStar]

We already have women in the mililtary that are engaged in combat. LifeMaiden and Inkspot. Everytime they ban someone, we give them a decal to put on the side of their monitor. LM is working on her second monitor now... :D

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

The battlefield is not a place for women. A lot of people who want women fighting say so more out of sentiment than logic. I can objectively say that men are more physically built for combat, running, and lifting things (like a wounded ally). Plus, a man is far less likely to get raped if captured by the enemy. A clichéd, but true, argument against it is that some chivalrous men will go out of their way to protect the female soldiers -- and get themselves wounded or killed in the process. And to be blatantly honest, I find the notion to be grossly unfeminine.
Are you out of your mind, boy? I am, though not if you glanced at me would you immediatly think, one of the most pugnacious people I know, and also a girl. Men, sure, usually look tougher, but I can beat up most of the guys I know.
Who cares if it's unfeminine? Seriously, who gives? And, what gives you the idea that women are more likely to get raped? Shows how much you know.
I can objectively say that men are more physically built for combat, running, and lifting things (like a wounded ally). Not true. I'm stronger than most guys I know. You're being extremley sexist, you know.

And, to be "blatantly honest" as you say, I find that women are usually more intimdating with guns than men are.

[Copperfox]

QueenSusan: I will take you at your word on how strong and tough you are; but as I observed a few posts ago, there are not ENOUGH women like you to safeguard against having UN-suitable women being hustled into combat roles if women on the front lines become the norm. As it is, it is fact, not opinion, that women in our armed forces are being given easier standards to meet for physical fitness than men are given. Why would that be happening if there were LOTS of women tougher than men?

Funny you should mention women with guns being more intimidating. Are you a policewoman? If you are, please correct me if I've got bad information on the following. According to accounts I've seen, policewomen are more intimidating with guns not because they shoot better, but because they are more likely TO shoot someone. And the reason WHY they are more likely to shoot someone is that, in spite of policewomen being considerably tougher than the statistically average woman, they STILL are often just plain UNABLE to beat some of the larger, more vicious male criminals hand to hand.


Joseph Ravitts, author of "Southward the Tigers"

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

QueenSusan: I will take you at your word on how strong and tough you are; but as I observed a few posts ago, there are not ENOUGH women like you to safeguard against having UN-suitable women being hustled into combat roles if women on the front lines become the norm. As it is, it is fact, not opinion, that women in our armed forces are being given easier standards to meet for physical fitness than men are given. Why would that be happening if there were LOTS of women tougher than men?

Funny you should mention women with guns being more intimidating. Are you a policewoman? If you are, please correct me if I've got bad information on the following. According to accounts I've seen, policewomen are more intimidating with guns not because they shoot better, but because they are more likely TO shoot someone. And the reason WHY they are more likely to shoot someone is that, in spite of policewomen being considerably tougher than the statistically average woman, they STILL are often just plain UNABLE to beat some of the larger, more vicious male criminals hand to hand.


Joseph Ravitts, author of "Southward the Tigers"
Well, unless there are 13-year-old policewomen, then, no, I'm not.
I am, however, very knowledgable that women are more intimidating because they're underestimated, pushed under the "weak" catagory.
So, next time you see a woman with a gun, you'd better realise that this is a woman who is anything but weak.

[Copperfox]

A gun in ANYONE'S hands, including (or especially!) the hands of someone who has no clue how to handle it safely, is dangerous. But nothing you have just said changes any of the points I've made.

Perhaps, though, a further observation will ease any thoughts you might have that I'm some sort of chauvinist redneck Neanderthal. When the moral right of decent citizens to possess means of defending themselves is discussed, those who DON'T want citizens to be able to defend themselves often try to confuse the issue by claiming that someone like me is only fascinated with guns as a Freudian manhood obsession. But in reality, I'm fascinated with the idea of all of us NOT being helpless victims for criminals. If the government would allow ALL WOMEN to carry guns legally, and NO (civilian) MEN to carry them, I would still consider that a vast improvement over disarming all honest citizens.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

I'm pretty sure you actually know what I mean: Women should be in military, I was (am)angry with this "Sain" person, for (basically) saying women are incompetent, weak beings who are more likley than men to get raped.

End of story, goodbye, the end. Any questions?

[Copperfox]

You're allowed some venting, in view of what you're going through. There is, by the way, more than one kind of strength; and I'm sure that you will be a source of strength for others in the bereavement situation you face. I wish you only well in that; so DON'T take what I say next as any sort of attack on you.

If women were not in some way or degree vulnerable, you would not see the feminists themselves complaining SO much about rape as they do--some of them going so far as to claim that even sex IN marriage, WITH consent, somehow STILL is rape. Also, if men get raped as often as women do, someone must be doing a mighty good job of hiding this fact from the authorities. Irrational feminists--as opposed to smart and honorable ones like LifeMaiden--try to have things both ways at once: demanding sympathy for being victims, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY claiming to be invincible, unbeatable Amazon warriors.

[Sain]

Sounds like you have a case of delusion-based pride. It's easy to say you "can beat-up most of the guys you know," but trying to put it into practice would be a very different story. Then again, a lot of men would probably go easy on you. Men are usually physically stronger, and that is beyond argument. If you actually challenged some well-built male soldiers to a competition of strength, your ego would likely be crushed.

My idea that women are more likely to get raped comes from simple numbers. The majority of people are heterosexual, so it is likely that an enemy would be more interested in women than men. The abuse of women within a war is definitely nothing new.

If being realistic and understanding the physical body of men and women makes me a "sexist," so be it. I do not buy all the feminist rhetoric about androgyny. Men and women are two different types of people who both have their excelling points and flaws.

[Copperfox]

Always bearing in mind that there are SOME very strong women, QueenSusan might indeed be one of the high-end female individuals for strength. But if "most of the males she knows" are her own age, the fact that girls mature physically faster than boys comes into play. Give her and her contemporaries another five years, and all other things being equal, the number of male acquaintances she can beat up will be smaller. But let's cut her a break. As has been seen elsewhere, her family is in a sad and hard time now. If she can be strong FOR THEM and help others get through their grieving, that will matter in God's sight more than how much she understands about practicalities of the armed forces. I still pray for you, QueenSusan.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Sounds like you have a case of delusion-based pride. It's easy to say you "can beat-up most of the guys you know," but trying to put it into practice would be a very different story. Then again, a lot of men would probably go easy on you. Men are usually physically stronger, and that is beyond argument. If you actually challenged some well-built male soldiers to a competition of strength, your ego would likely be crushed.

Well, seeing as I'm only 13 and, therefore, smaller than probably all the people in the army, then, yes, I may get beaten; however, yes, I have beaten up guys - and girls - and am not afraid to admit it. (Tae Kwon Do is a very physical martial art...)

[Copperfox]

QUEENSUSAN:

There's no cause to be afraid or ashamed of admitting that you've beaten up someone of either sex, IF--

1) That other person seriously attacked you, and you were just defending yourself;

2) That other person attacked an innocent person, and you were protecting the intended victim; OR

3) It was a formal and fair contest in which your opponent voluntarily accepted the risk, and you fought within the rules.

But if you inflicted a beating not covered by any of the above possibilities...if you did violence merely to enjoy hurting someone, or to force someone else to give way to your selfish will...then you very urgently need to confess it to God as a sin. I prefer to think that you DON'T mean you hurt someone without justified cause. That's not a gender issue, it's an issue of right and wrong.


Joseph Ravitts

[LifeMaiden]

Here's a question in relation to women in the military and in military academies. SHOULD a woman expect sexual harassment from the men? In other words if you had a sister or daughter who decided to go into the military or an academy, would you say to her, " The men shouldn't be harassing you, but many of them WILL?"

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

QUEENSUSAN:

There's no cause to be afraid or ashamed of admitting that you've beaten up someone of either sex, IF--

1) That other person seriously attacked you, and you were just defending yourself;

2) That other person attacked an innocent person, and you were protecting the intended victim; OR

3) It was a formal and fair contest in which your opponent voluntarily accepted the risk, and you fought within the rules.

But if you inflicted a beating not covered by any of the above possibilities...if you did violence merely to enjoy hurting someone, or to force someone else to give way to your selfish will...then you very urgently need to confess it to God as a sin. I prefer to think that you DON'T mean you hurt someone without justified cause. That's not a gender issue, it's an issue of right and wrong.


Joseph Ravitts
Well, can I possibly ADD to the list?

4) it's all in the sport. Martial Arts - the kind I take is called Tae Kwon Do - is all about self-defense, and, yes, we "beat each other up" in sparring, as opponents. Watch it on the Olympics some time, eh? And you can see just how dangerous women - and girls like me - actually are.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

This is a funny thought I had. Girls are vicious. If Osama Ben Laden faced them, well... The troops would be home with their prisoner.:D

[Copperfox]

LIFEMAIDEN: There still is sexual harassment in the armed forces, despite the fact that they have anti-harassment lectures about every three minutes. Every Navy command has an "Equal Opportunity Officer," whose duties include being an impartial person to whom harassment complaints can be brought. Sexual "politics," including subordinates trying to gain special privileges by offering sex to superiors, is a related issue also of great concern. But there's also another, less publicized problem: women MAKING UP false accusations of harassment out of spite. That DOES happen. Not every "victim" is a genuine victim.

QUEENSUSAN: You need to read more carefully what other people say. Your "addition" did not add anything; my third possibility, that of a fair contest, takes in martial arts activities. And believe me, I know what Tae Kwon Do is, and Hap Ki Do, and Hwa Rang Do, and Tang Soo Do.

BENJAMIN: Joking aside, there's nobody on Earth who knows more about fighting monsters like Bin-Laden than the Israelis know. The Israelis tried putting women in frontline combat units, but ultimately decided that the negatives outweighed the positives. No matter how vicious girls can be, there are many more considerations that have to be factored in, considerations that have already been amply explained.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

This is a funny thought I had. Girls are vicious. If Osama Ben Laden faced them, well... The troops would be home with their prisoner.:D

Benjamin, you be correct, my friend. If that man ever saw me, or my Tae Kwon Do friends Schyler, Tameka, and Sharika, he'd want to be running.

[LifeMaiden]

Try PMS as well. Every month women would be going crazy " Let's nuke Osama NEXT WEEK":D

[Son of Adam]

Try PMS as well. Every month women would be going crazy " Let's nuke Osama NEXT WEEK":D

I think it is the PMS factor that has kept women from becoming President for so long - a PMS hand on the nuclear button is just too dangerous.:p :D ROFLOL!!!

[Ephinie]

I just asked my officers what they thought about women in combat, briefly explaining to them the content of this thread. One of them said that putting women in combat is fighting dirty, and the other said that if he's going to be holed up in a fox hole, he'd rather it be with a woman. :rolleyes:

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Try PMS as well. Every month women would be going crazy " Let's nuke Osama NEXT WEEK":D

You got it, LM. :p

[Shadow Hawk]

This is a funny thought I had. Girls are vicious. If Osama Ben Laden faced them, well... The troops would be home with their prisoner.:D


Osama ben Laden and several pther terroist groups are training some elite forces. IF trained correctly, which i have no doubt they will, will be able to take on the best of troops.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Osama ben Laden and several pther terroist groups are training some elite forces. IF trained correctly, which i have no doubt they will, will be able to take on the best of troops.
Ah, yes, which is why, indeed, the question pops up: will they be able to take on the best of troops, if the best of troops are not what they expect?

[Shadow Hawk]

First what do you know about this group? and How does the United States train their troops?

[LifeMaiden]

I just asked my officers what they thought about women in combat, briefly explaining to them the content of this thread. One of them said that putting women in combat is fighting dirty, and the other said that if he's going to be holed up in a fox hole, he'd rather it be with a woman. :rolleyes:



Haha I love it. :D


It would be interesting though to ask many men if they thought women should NOT fight in combat because women SHOULD NOT or because they CAN NOT ( physically and emotionally ). On submarines and very close quarters, do you think it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE for men and women to be together in such close proximinity physically...seeing as there's uh, some things men just can't control. :D

[she-elfwarrior19]

I think women can join the army, anyone who really wants to serve their country should be able to do that, and they do.

ShadowHawk-i love your signature i agree 100% with what you wrote in it too.

[LifeMaiden]

Well the question was really should women be allowed to FIGHT in combat with the men, not just join the armed forces? They can do pretty much everything but that...and do get wounded and killed in battle while not actually fighting 'in battle' per se.

[Shadow Hawk]

I'll say this IF you do let them fight along side men the codes/restrictions will to have new restrictions added and enforced.

[LifeMaiden]

Such as 'no wearing bikinis' while in combat....:D

[Shadow Hawk]

or underpants.......:D

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

I just asked my officers what they thought about women in combat, briefly explaining to them the content of this thread. One of them said that putting women in combat is fighting dirty, and the other said that if he's going to be holed up in a fox hole, he'd rather it be with a woman. :rolleyes:
The first one, I dunno what to say..
The second...all I have to say is...boys will be boys, men will be men. :rolleyes:

[she-elfwarrior19]

The second...all I have to say is...boys will be boys, men will be men. :rolleyes:

Amen tol that sista!!! :D :rolleyes: :p

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Amen tol that sista!!!
Amen to that...

or underpants.......:D
And, Shadow Hawk...will be Shadow Hawk...:rolleyes:

[star trooper]

Women, in my opinion, should not be allowed in warfare. I believe that their role is to nurture and strengthen those who have fought. I don't want to sound harsh or ignorant, but women don't have the strength or endurance that men have. It's not that women are worse they just aren't born that way. That's why men have roles and women have roles. Men are the hunters, women are the gatherers. That's my opinion.

[LifeMaiden]

Women, in my opinion, should not be allowed in warfare. I believe that their role is to nurture and strengthen those who have fought. I don't want to sound harsh or ignorant, but women don't have the strength or endurance that men have. It's not that women are worse they just aren't born that way. That's why men have roles and women have roles. Men are the hunters, women are the gatherers. That's my opinion.

And sadly if all men thought that way, there would be no women CEO's, no women anywhere in the government, no women personal fitness trainers like myself ( hey, I should be supporting the guy who's being a weekend warrior and not myself) except barefoot and pregnant in the home. Sorry but that's so out dated and old fashioned about the hunter gatherer mentality it's Medieval backward thinking. And of course, if a woman doesn't have kids or doesn't nurture, God forbid...she's not a woman, she must be a lesbian or abnormal. PUH LEEZE spare me.

[Copperfox]

Even in societies where it was not accepted for women to be frontline combat soldiers (actually, that would be most societies everywhere always), the same men who didn't want women on the battlefield were usually willing to TAKE ORDERS FROM a woman who had authority that they recognized as lawful. Queen Elizabeth the First of England, and Empress Catherine the Great of Russia, both had armies full of male soldiers who had no male-chauvinistic objections to having those women tell them what to do. And right now, there are men in America's armed forces who don't think it's a good idea to put women on the front lines--and yet who would vote for Condoleezza Rice if she were a candidate to become their Commander-In-Chief.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Women, in my opinion, should not be allowed in warfare. I believe that their role is to nurture and strengthen those who have fought. I don't want to sound harsh or ignorant, but women don't have the strength or endurance that men have. It's not that women are worse they just aren't born that way. That's why men have roles and women have roles. Men are the hunters, women are the gatherers. That's my opinion.
And, of course, it angers me. Opinion or not, it's the (as LM says) the most medivial concept around.
And, Copperfox, again, I must say:
I AM TOTALLY DISAGREEING WITH YOU. WOMEN SHOULD BE IN COMBAT. END OF STORY. IT'S MEN'S EGOS GETTING IN THE WAY, HERE, I THINK, AS BOTH COPPERFOX AND WHOEVER ARE GUYS (I KNOW CF IS, AT LEAST), THEY'RE EGOS ARE SHOWING.no offense meant.

[Neevil]

And sadly if all men thought that way, there would be no women CEO's, no women anywhere in the government, no women personal fitness trainers like myself ( hey, I should be supporting the guy who's being a weekend warrior and not myself) except barefoot and pregnant in the home. Sorry but that's so out dated and old fashioned about the hunter gatherer mentality it's Medieval backward thinking. And of course, if a woman doesn't have kids or doesn't nurture, God forbid...she's not a woman, she must be a lesbian or abnormal. PUH LEEZE spare me.
I agree that being a stay-at-home mom is not the only thing that a woman can do, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that, either. It upsets me when people think that a woman is only successful or whatever when they are working business women. Staying home, caring for and educating their kids is looked down upon. Even though I know women are capable of more than being homemakers, there's still nothing wrong with that. God gave women the very special role of teaching and raising her children, and caring for her family. There is absolutely nothing old fashioned or backward about it. Raising and teaching your children is one of the most difficult, and also the most important and precious jobs in the world.

[LifeMaiden]

I'm sorry Neevil but where did I say I was disrespecting women who did choose to stay home with their kids? I was disagreeing with the notion that that's ALL a woman should do. The implication from the statement about women being gatherers and men being hunters was that it was UNFAVORABLE FOR A WOMAN to work outside the home and to be in the military service. The kind of thinking that says a woman should ONLY stay at home is what is backwards here. I'd like you to point out where I said that a woman who stays at home isn't to be respected or revered.

Implying that a woman who does NOT want kids like myself and who does NOT choose to stay at home isn't a 'natural woman' because of the hunter gatherer mentality or the idea that a woman should ONLY be a supportive role of men is what I am arguing AGAINST.

[LifeMaiden]

Even in societies where it was not accepted for women to be frontline combat soldiers (actually, that would be most societies everywhere always), the same men who didn't want women on the battlefield were usually willing to TAKE ORDERS FROM a woman who had authority that they recognized as lawful. Queen Elizabeth the First of England, and Empress Catherine the Great of Russia, both had armies full of male soldiers who had no male-chauvinistic objections to having those women tell them what to do. And right now, there are men in America's armed forces who don't think it's a good idea to put women on the front lines--and yet who would vote for Condoleezza Rice if she were a candidate to become their Commander-In-Chief.



So am I to gather that what you are saying is that these men who would vote for Rice and take orders from women rulers are hypocrites? That if they don't want women in the armed forces on the front lines they SHOULDN'T vote for Rice?

[Neevil]

Sorry if I over-reacted a little about what you said, LM. My mom stays at home and homeschools my sisters and I, and many, many, many times people look down on that. They think she just lays around the house all day watching TV or something... But really, she works just as hard as anybody. She wakes up early, and works late. Sometimes she stays up until 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning working on school stuff. So sometimes I just get upset because a lot of people don't value the role of a wife and mother as it should be valued. I agree with you, that women definately can do other things as well. But it seems like sometimes people get really busy defending women's rights and trying to get rid of the "old-fashioned" idea that women should ONLY stay home and be good little wives. And instead of adding new roles (working, being in the military, whatever...) to the already existing role of wife and mother, they replace it. That's why I got a little upset, but I guess I misread your post... sorry about that :o :)

[Skandar's Girl]

Of course! If they weren't then all you who think they shouldn't would still be stuck in the 19th century! Women are no weaker than men! They are no less than men!

[LifeMaiden]

Sorry if I over-reacted a little about what you said, LM. My mom stays at home and homeschools my sisters and I, and many, many, many times people look down on that. They think she just lays around the house all day watching TV or something... But really, she works just as hard as anybody. She wakes up early, and works late. Sometimes she stays up until 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning working on school stuff. So sometimes I just get upset because a lot of people don't value the role of a wife and mother as it should be valued. I agree with you, that women definately can do other things as well. But it seems like sometimes people get really busy defending women's rights and trying to get rid of the "old-fashioned" idea that women should ONLY stay home and be good little wives. And instead of adding new roles (working, being in the military, whatever...) to the already existing role of wife and mother, they replace it. That's why I got a little upset, but I guess I misread your post... sorry about that :o :)




Sadly, when being a traditional homemaker is looked 'down on'...is that it's almost ALWAYS done by other women. Men don't look 'down' on women who value being mothers and wives. If I looked down on that extremely important and VITAL part of being a woman, I would be insulting my own mom, my grandmothers, and most of my aunts. They went to work later after the kids were gone generally so they could have something to do and add a little extra money to the household.

I know some of you more traditional guys might be thinking that because I don't AGREE that a woman should be more of a support to a man rather than a leader, than I am devaluing femininity and traditional Biblical roles for women and not saying that the man should be the head of the household.


That is not the case. My point is that women have much power as supporting roles with men... but neither should they always follow BEHIND him. To me, a woman and a man walk down the aisle TOGETHER side by side in marriage. I don't like the idea that women should JUST be at home and not be able to pursue the careers of their dreams in addition to being moms and wives. Neither should a woman be 'looked down on' ( and I have, trust me...there's still a prevailing attitude in society that if you don't want kids, you're not a complete woman) if she chooses to opt out of marriage or children.


The point is that being a woman is about having MANY choices...the choice to stay home traditionally and home school, to be a pastor, to be an engineer, to be a CEO, to have one child or none, or have fifteen.

[Per Sempre]

ABSOULUTELY. I have thought about being in the military before. Women can make just as much difference as men. Many woman soldiers have lost their lives for our country and should be honored. Not shunned by people on a Narnia forum.

Not that there is anything wrong with stay-at-home moms or nurses, it's just that women have the same rights as men. Should have payed attention in Social Studies.:)

[Copperfox]

Per Sempre, you probably did not see a lot of what was written on this thread before now.

Armed forces do not exist to be a showcase of arbitary, politically-correct "fairness." They exist to prevent a country and its people from being destroyed by enemies; and if they fail in this duty, it won't be any consolation that they failed while being politically correct.

I am a retired veteran of twenty years in the U.S. Navy. While I was in, I witnessed firsthand the fact that military women _are_ given easier physical standards to meet than men are. So much so, that even though I personally am one of the WEAKEST, LEAST FIT males _ever_ to be accepted into military service, I still proved stronger and faster than some women who were half my age. For most purposes in a modern military force, this is not important, which is why no one anymore opposes women being in the vast majority of military specialties. But for front-line infantry combat, peak-output strength still makes a life-and-death difference; and it was exactly the front-line combat role that was being debated the most when this thread was more active.

As I said back then, OF COURSE there are some women who have all the physical prowess that an infantry soldier needs...but there are not AS MANY of them as doctrinaire feminists would have us believe. Leaving alone the issue of sexual misconduct between men and women living in field conditions, and all the stuff about enemy troops raping prisoners (both of these were discussed in depth before now), there is a large-scale danger to our military effectiveness if women are "equally" admitted to front-line infantry. The danger is that, because _some_ women can do this job, the political pressure for compliance will result in women who _can't_ do it also being sent to the front, to fill out the demanded numbers.

The same thing happened with Naval fighter aviation. In the urgency to show compliance about putting women in fighter cockpits, the Navy allowed a woman to fly the F-14 who _wasn't_ up to it. As a result, this woman crashed and died making a carrier landing at sea. As a cover-up, the Navy said she had suffered engine failure; but the Center for Military Readiness (headed by a woman, by the way) revealed that this was a politically-correct LIE. The unfortunate female pilot was killed by her own flying error.

The free world has enemies right now, who would love to have us tie our own hands by being more concerned to keep Nancy Pelosi and Barbra Streisand happy than to make our defenses efficient. Nothing I have said here is to say that women should be spitefully kept out of jobs where their presence would produce a good result; but that good result--our national survival--matters more than anyone's pride.


P.O.1 Joseph R. Ravitts, U.S.N. Ret.

[LifeMaiden]

Per Sempre, you probably did not see a lot of what was written on this thread before now.

Armed forces do not exist to be a showcase of arbitary, politically-correct "fairness." They exist to prevent a country and its people from being destroyed by enemies; and if they fail in this duty, it won't be any consolation that they failed while being politically correct.

I am a retired veteran of twenty years in the U.S. Navy. While I was in, I witnessed firsthand the fact that military women _are_ given easier physical standards to meet than men are. So much so, that even though I personally am one of the WEAKEST, LEAST FIT males _ever_ to be accepted into military service, I still proved stronger and faster than some women who were half my age. For most purposes in a modern military force, this is not important, which is why no one anymore opposes women being in the vast majority of military specialties. But for front-line infantry combat, peak-output strength still makes a life-and-death difference; and it was exactly the front-line combat role that was being debated the most when this thread was more active.

As I said back then, OF COURSE there are some women who have all the physical prowess that an infantry soldier needs...but there are not AS MANY of them as doctrinaire feminists would have us believe. Leaving alone the issue of sexual misconduct between men and women living in field conditions, and all the stuff about enemy troops raping prisoners (both of these were discussed in depth before now), there is a large-scale danger to our military effectiveness if women are "equally" admitted to front-line infantry. The danger is that, because _some_ women can do this job, the political pressure for compliance will result in women who _can't_ do it also being sent to the front, to fill out the demanded numbers.

The same thing happened with Naval fighter aviation. In the urgency to show compliance about putting women in fighter cockpits, the Navy allowed a woman to fly the F-14 who _wasn't_ up to it. As a result, this woman crashed and died making a carrier landing at sea. As a cover-up, the Navy said she had suffered engine failure; but the Committee for Military Readiness (headed by a woman, by the way) revealed that this was a politically-correct LIE. The unfortunate female pilot was killed by her own flying error.

The free world has enemies right now, who would love to have us tie our own hands by being more concerned to keep Nancy Pelosi and Barbra Streisand happy than to make our defenses efficient. Nothing I have said here is to say that women should be spitefully kept out of jobs where their presence would produce a good result; but that good result--our national survival--matters more than anyone's pride.


P.O.1 Joseph R. Ravitts, U.S.N. Ret.



And by that token, women cannot or should not be firefighters, police officers, SWAT member teams, be allowed in the US military academies because of 'lowered standards' and other places where males have reigned supreme. So if you gals are dreaming about any of those jobs, forget it!

[Shadow Hawk]

In some places they need stenght......and SG everyone is created equal but, phyiscally men are stronger.

[LifeMaiden]

There are some women who are capable of the same endurance and strength as men. I'm stronger than some of the MEN at my gym.

[Neevil]

Being equal to men and being the same as men are two completely different things. God made men and women differently. While there are exceptions, there are some things that men were created to do better than women and other things that women were created to do better than men.

[LifeMaiden]

We are definitely not the same as men. :D

[SOS~]

Women are strong they have to go through child birth.

[Copperfox]

Okay, LifeMaiden, I think I know you well enough by now to know when you're just being contrary so we can all have some fun with it. You say:

> And by that token, women cannot or should not be firefighters, police
> officers, SWAT member teams, be allowed in the US military academies
> because of 'lowered standards' and other places where males have reigned
> supreme. So if you gals are dreaming about any of those jobs, forget it!

Since some may not have been around before, thank you for replaying the feminist objections to make the picture more complete. Now I can answer you for illustration purposes to the newbies, just AS IF you didn't already know how I answered these points before.

You of course know that your individual report of your own physical prowess does not disprove _anything_ I said--because I already _did_ say that there are _some_ women able to do combat-soldier tasks. But others, blinded by feminist indignation, may have managed to make themselves not see that I said so. Thus I repeat: yes, there are strong women, there just aren't AS MANY strong women as feminists want us to believe. Even if you individually were able to bench-press Mount Rainier in your sleep, you would still be just one person, and it would not change the fact that super-strong women just ARE NOT showing up in the armed forces by the tens of thousands. If they were, I would not have seen the extra slack being cut for military women that IS in verifiable fact cut for them.

A police department or a fire department is not as much of a huge-mass operation as an army division. If you get, say, thirty very strong women in a police department or forty very strong women in a fire department, that's great. But, as I already explained for the benefit of those who actually read what's there, an official normalization of women as front-line infantry troopers will mean a demand for HUGE numbers of women in those units to show political compliance. Then the supply of Amazons will run out, and women who only _think_ they're Xena will be brought in to fill the rest of the set-aside billets. The likely results will be as I already wrote.

Relative to the amount of issue needing to be covered, I think we've redone the essence of this thread pretty well with reasonable brevity. Thank you for collaborating with me, LM.

[LifeMaiden]

I'm going to quote a member here from another thread, but it does seem like we're rehashing the same argument over and over in regards to what women can and cannot, or should not do. Clearly many men here believe that women should not be involved in the front lines or in jobs where they are required to pass physical tests where the standards have been lowered for women.

I am not blinded by the fact either that men for the most part ARE stronger than women physically. However our discussion was about primarily whether they SHOULD serve in the front lines not in regards to other jobs. Being a policewoman or a firewoman are a different jobs than being in battle as a soldier and facing cruelties that some of my own veteran relatives never talk about. I can SAY that yeah, I'm a kick butt woman in the gym and maybe even can outshine some of the guys there, but I honestly may NOT be equipped mentally or emotionally to handle the intense psychological stress that soldiers must have in combat.

We know for a fact that in military academies, which train and prepare young men and women for the armed forces...physical fitness tests are lowered for the women in upper body strength. I can pass the West Point physical test for women, for example, but passing a physical test with lowered standards means nothing in reality to actually being there in battle.

Our topic veered off for a bit in regards to roles and jobs women should or should not do. While some men here regard that women SHOULD NOT be in battle, I would hope that they respect women who choose to be in leadership roles and in roles which are other than complementing or supporting men, but rather, seek more independence in jobs that require skills traditionally which have been desirable only for men in the past , such as ambition and drive, and the desire to make a lot of money.

[Copperfox]

My first wife, now enrolled with the saints up yonder, had actually been my boss at a job for a time early in our acquaintance. There, and all through my Navy career, I had no neurotic problem with taking orders from women. As LifeMaiden realizes and others ought to realize, my misgivings about so-called G.I. Janes are not about disrespecting women, but about accepting reality.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

I am a retired veteran of twenty years in the U.S. Navy. While I was in, I witnessed firsthand the fact that military women _are_ given easier physical standards to meet than men are. So much so, that even though I personally am one of the WEAKEST, LEAST FIT males _ever_ to be accepted into military service, I still proved stronger and faster than some women who were half my age.
Have you considered the fact that, then maybe, women weren't as fit because they were forced to stay at home or at a desk or just sitting around doing nothing?

[Copperfox]

No, they were not forced to sit around. There are women in the armed forces who have had plenty of freedom to do what they liked before enlisting; who are very active, exercise regularly, and are stronger than _some_ men...but who still cannot begin to match the performance of men at the high end of the male strength spectrum.

I said I'm among the weaker men, because I am. But even I have done better at physical things than some women--and I don't only mean women who were confined to a house. About nine years ago (when I wasn't plagued with arthritis and carpal tunnel as I am now), I was at a military skills competition in which non-athletic skills were mixed in with physical activity. One event was to simulate being a battlefield message runner; it involved running around the perimeter of an athletic field. There was a young woman who was very much into fitness, or claimed she was; she bragged and bragged about what great shape she was in. Runners were starting at intervals, each timed separately, and this woman was the one scheduled to start just before me. When I got my signal to start running, she was at least fifty yards ahead of me. I overtook her, passed her, and finished almost as far ahead of her as she had started ahead of me. I heard no more bragging from her. I was about 45 years old then, while she looked to be about 20.

I seriously doubt that there was even ONE other male at that event who would NOT have beaten ME easily in a footrace; and yet even I, the oldest and slowest male present, outran that woman. I don't want to be quarrelsome toward you, QueenSusan, for you have shown me kindly personal courtesy in the recent past despite your disagreements with me; but the facts of my experience and observation are what they are. No doubt you, individually, are like LifeMaiden, at the high end of the female strength spectrum; but as I keep having to say, there ARE NOT ENOUGH strong women like you to fill out a front-line combat army. If there were, we'd have noticed them before now.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Ah, yes dear fellow, but, that was then; this is now. Take it from someone in the smack-dab middle of the generation of current day: girls are just as (sometimes more, sometimes less) fit than the boys.

Facts of life.

[Copperfox]

Facts of life are that I've only been retired from the Navy for four months, and the lower standards for women were still in effect when I left because they STILL DON'T have enough strong women to raise the standards, and there were already plenty of women into martial arts and sports before you were even born, and it didn't change any of those realities which I have discussed. If you don't want to hear it from me, just look up Elaine Donnelly, a woman, who runs the Center for Military Readiness. She's got plenty of hard information on this subject.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Phck.

Listen: alls I have to say is women are not incompetent, make-up-and-shopping-obssessed, wieght-watching-24/7, vain, ignorant fools as men with egos as big as the moon think. We can do anything we want, and, may I point out, that, maybe, the reason you beat that one woman was because she herself, not women in general, are un-athletic or unfit?
Women are powerful, and can be so much more than we are if men just stop thinking "oh, it's still medivial days, we rule, women stink," etc., and let us go to our full potential rather than sit around doing nothing, or, do something, but not to our full potential.
We're being hindered by men, us women and girls. Men and boys are still the "dominant gender" and probably always will be because of what we humans have known through history.

But I beg and urge you not to be blinded by the fact that you beat one woman in a race.

[Shadow Hawk]

I've played basketball with girls before when I was in junior high. they on the other hand were in high school. But, we beat them 71 to 23

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Why are boys so pompous and ignorant??

You and CF are both thinking of [a] specific women [woman] or girl[s]. Ack. Boys, men, so blind to the actual WORLD. Overall, you have seen only who you know, not who you don't. You've never met me, and I could say proudly that I know and can defend myself better than anyone I know. I'm stronger than most people I know, too.

Think.
FOR ONCE OF THE OTHER WOMEN AND GIRLS IN THE WORLD. WHAT ABOUT THEM? COULD YOU BEAT THEM IN A RACE, CF? COULD YOU BEAT THEM IN BASKETBALL, SH?

Question, then answer.
Think, then question.

[Shadow Hawk]

Considering that I've played basketball and that I've moved over seven times and that I can dunk at the age of 16. I could probably beat most then lose to those that are older than me and actaully have experience.

[Copperfox]

One time when I was in S.C.A., I was arriving at an event alongside a robed man and a weapon-bearing woman. Mundane-clothed visitors came up and asked the robed and hooded man, "Are you an executioner?" I quickly replied, "No, he's a monk;" then I pointed to the young woman and added, "The lady is the executioner." The lady thanked me for answering in that fashion; it pleased her that I didn't act threatened by a woman assuming a strong role. If there is one thing I have never done in my life, it is to hold women in chains of oppression and artificial limitations.

QueenSusan, I challenge you to find one place where I ever said that women as a group are incompetent, ignorant, etc. (> Crickets chirping in the stillness. <) Wherever you got this burden of resentment from, you clearly had it before you ever heard of me; but you seem quick to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is in partnership with whoever it was that first made you so angry. Did you miss the part where I said my first wife was MY BOSS in a job at one time, and that I have no problem taking orders from women? But neither this information about me, nor any of your emotional venting ("Phck"?--that's a new one on me), constitutes an actual answer to the observable and verifiable facts which I and others have cited about issues of wartime combat ability.

More people need to realize that resentment is a kind of intoxicating drug; a person can start to _enjoy_ the feeling of having a grievance. This can occur in both sexes; but in the current politically-correct climate, it is mainly women who are encouraged by the popular culture to indulge in it. THAT is something which seriously "blinds" people.

That one boastful woman I described is very far from being the only woman whom I have ever outdone physically. I had another female military acquaintance of whom there was NO doubt that she WAS highly athletic; in running, she left almost everyone far behind. But when it came to upper-body strength, I could easily handle and carry heavy objects that she could scarcely budge. Now, something else I never said was that I could "beat all women in a race;" but it was my very point that if I, at the WEAK end of the male spectrum, can outdo as many women as I have outdone, that says something about all the men who are far stronger than I am--and, I guarantee you, far stronger than you are also.

Here's a suggestion, QueenSusan: instead of getting angry every time you're not told what you want to hear, just go ahead and DO the things you're capable of doing. Achieve the things you can achieve, and I don't mean in the kitchen and the nursery unless that's what you want. If you stop choosing to take offense so easily, I'll bet you'll find you're not being held back nearly as much by us mean old men as you've convinced yourself you are.

[Ephinie]

I don't think it's that uncommon for girls to be physically stronger than guys when they are children and up through their teenage years. Growing up, I have always been stronger than my brothers - including my older brother. I'm still stronger than both of my younger brothers, who are now 16 and 19. I sure as heck am not stronger than my older brother, though, who is 26 now. The shift to him being stronger happened somewhere around when we were 14 and 16 or so.

I was also stronger than several guys in my class when I was in school, between sixth and ninth grades. Several of us girls were stronger, in fact. But I can assure you that the majority of guys I went to college with are stronger than I am.

I'm just saying this, Queen Susan, because you made a comment about how now a days girls and guys are equally as fit. That may be true now, but see if you really are stronger than most guys you know once you're in your mid-twenties.

But you have to also remember that we are talking about pure, PHYSICAL strength. There is a lot more to getting a job done than how much sheer power a person can put out. Physical strength is only one aspect of a person's attributes, and there are countless ways that women can compensate for their lack of physical strength when placed in competition with men in the work force. So when these guys say that women tend to not be as strong as men, they are not saying that we are incompetent or unfit for duty. They're just saying that we might not be able to carry a backpack for as many miles as they can. Even if that's true, how does that degrade us any?

[Elendil]

I'm stronger than alot of guys...I weight lift...:o weird for a girl...but it's something I'm good at! :D

[Copperfox]

EPHINIE: Thank you for the important observation on maturation affecting strength. Boys do take longer to grow into what they are designed to be.

As for being degraded: I don't think I am less worthy as a person than all of the other men who are far stronger than I am. But strength, including for carrying backpacks, can make an enormous practical difference. If it is absolutely necessary for you to travel seventy miles on foot in three days, and you've got ninety pounds of equipment and supplies to take along which NO ONE else is going to carry for you, and you CANNOT survive without ALL of those items, then it makes a vital difference whether you are strong enough to carry your load that far or not; and an ability to punch and kick people will not carry that load for you.

[Ephinie]

Well to take this discussion in another direction...

There are women stationed in Iraq right now. Does anyone have any insight as to how well they are performing in comparison to the men who are also stationed there?

[Elendil]

EPHINIE: Thank you for the important observation on maturation affecting strength. Boys do take longer to grow into what they are designed to be.

As for being degraded: I don't think I am less worthy as a person than all of the other men who are far stronger than I am. But strength, including for carrying backpacks, can make an enormous practical difference. If it is absolutely necessary for you to travel seventy miles on foot in three days, and you've got ninety pounds of equipment and supplies to take along which NO ONE else is going to carry for you, and you CANNOT survive without ALL of those items, then it makes a vital difference whether you are strong enough to carry your load that far or not; and an ability to punch and kick people will not carry that load for you.

True...but strength isn't really the issue about women fighting or not fighting, is it? After all, most fighting is done with guns. And I think anyone can fire a gun (not nessisarly be able to hit something though! :p) anyway, I'm not going to start arguing about it. It's not an issue with me.

[Ephinie]

True...but strength isn't really the issue about women fighting or not fighting, is it? After all, most fighting is done with guns. And I think anyone can fire a gun (not nessisarly be able to hit something though! :p) anyway, I'm not going to start arguing about it. It's not an issue with me.
Well... there's more to fighting than just firing guns. If want to go there, however, women are better shots than men.

[Copperfox]

In ground combat, strength still IS the issue, because pulling triggers is only a small part of it. Note what I wrote about carrying ninety pounds for seventy miles; and then there's picking up and carrying to safety a wounded man who, counting his body armor that there's no time to take off of him, weighs close to three hundred pounds. I sure never claimed *I* could do that one, either.

Which takes me back to something which I've made very clear before now, if only people will take off the p.c. goggles and see the explanation. YES, THERE ARE _SOME_ women who can do all of the above; but in sheer numbers there ARE NOT ENOUGH such women to warrant making women into frontline infantry at the cost of all the difficulties that would accompany this (also covered before).

But your point about sharpshooting is relevant, Ephinie. The circumstances under which a sniper operates will at least sometimes relieve the sniper from having to do so much burden-carrying as the field soldier. That's probably why the battle-experienced Israeli Defense Force, while NOT making women into regular frontline infantry, DOES use female snipers.

[Ephinie]

But your point about sharpshooting is relevant, Ephinie. The circumstances under which a sniper operates will at least sometimes relieve the sniper from having to do so much burden-carrying as the field soldier. That's probably why the battle-experienced Israeli Defense Force, while NOT making women into regular frontline infantry, DOES use female snipers.There is another point that should be mentioned in regard to snipers, though... Women are better shots, yes. But what happens if your target is a child? I know that I would have a huge problem shooting a child, and I would wager to say that MOST other women I know would as well. Most people, including men, would have a problem with it; but something tells me that, in general, a guy would be able to do it more easily if such a thing were necessary. And in war, it just might be necessary.

[Copperfox]

Although it sadly is true that civilian deaths CANNOT always be avoided in war, I know of NO time in the ENTIRE history of the United States when an American sniper, or any American servicemember, has been officially ordered by legitimate authority to single out a child and kill that child on purpose (unless, perhaps, the child was old enough to carry a weapon, and was doing so in a genuinely threatening way). So, Ephinie, if you take a hankering to join the Army and become a sniper, I am confident that you will not face that crisis of conscience.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

YES, THERE ARE _SOME_ women who can do all of the above; but in sheer numbers there ARE NOT ENOUGH such women to warrant making women into frontline infantry at the cost of all the difficulties that would accompany this (also covered before).


You know, CF, I just love how you said "some" like that. Sneering tone, I can hear it. Phck.

[Copperfox]

QueenSusan, are you just pretending to be angry the way LifeMaiden sometimes does, or are you _really_ that intoxicated with the dark pleasure of convincing yourself you have a right to be resentful about something? Are you _really_ unable to think through the substance of things that have been explained more than enough to you, so that all you notice is whatever little detail you can tell yourself is an insult? How the "phck" (to use your own "clever" term) do YOU know if I intended a "sneering" tone in what I said about "some" women? How about maybe I was distinguishing the reality of _only_ some women being strong enough to be combat soldiers, in contrast to you apparently believing that practically ALL of them are? At the same time, saying "some" is a reminder that I _never_ said "none" of them were.

The Apostle Paul said in Galatians 4:16, "Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?" I've given you verifiable facts about this hot-button issue of yours, and you have reacted in a way I _cannot_ imagine your Tae Kwon Do teacher ever taught you to react to words you didn't want to hear. Basically you have lashed out with childish emotional rants: "I'm strong! I'm strong! I'm strong!"--which don't even begin to answer ANY of the factual points I've made. You owe me several apologies by this time, but I won't expect to get any of them until you've come somewhere within a hundred miles of the concept of growing up. God (not "Goddess") help you if you ever have a job on which your livelihood depends, and if the first time your boss tells you something you don't want to hear you reply to him or her the way you reply to people here when they don't stroke your feminist ego.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

I'm not "pretending" as you, CF, call it, but merely antagonized about how a 40-some year old man is arguing with a 13-year-old girl about a topic that said girl feels strongly about, and that said man is pretending to know more than said girl about females.

Hmph.

And, "phck" is merely a term like "ack" or "hmph", not something like "heck" or whatever you think it is, nor do I intend to convey it as a "clever" term like you.

[LifeMaiden]

Okay...while I run the risk of being called hypocrite here since I've clearly responded with anger many a time on this forum on subjects I feel very strongly about or have misinterpreted someone else's opinion, let me just reinterate and say here that we have to read between the lines. Even if you don't agree with someone, keep it light and free of personal attacks.


Trust me QueenSusanofNarnia...Copperfox has weathered MANY of my attacks LOL. :D But I don't think he's being the 'mean old guy' you're making him out to be. Let's just agree to disagree and say that you guys simply aren't seeing things eye to eye.

[Copperfox]

QS, your phrase "FEELS strongly" says it all. You go by your feelings, as indeed young people today are being taught to do. Other things I will leave unsaid in deference to LM.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Fine. You were tought facts, I am tought to feel.

We'll leave it at that.

[LifeMaiden]

I understand QueenSusanofNarnia. I am a very passionate, emotional person too, and I get caught up in that far too often than rationality. Thanks for calming down.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Well, I can't say it was easy, but, you're welcome.. :o

[Ephinie]

Although it sadly is true that civilian deaths CANNOT always be avoided in war, I know of NO time in the ENTIRE history of the United States when an American sniper, or any American servicemember, has been officially ordered by legitimate authority to single out a child and kill that child on purpose (unless, perhaps, the child was old enough to carry a weapon, and was doing so in a genuinely threatening way). So, Ephinie, if you take a hankering to join the Army and become a sniper, I am confident that you will not face that crisis of conscience.I'm sure no one has been legitimately ordered to single out and kill a child, but that does not mean that such a situation would not ever present itself. I had understood that during Vietnam, the enemy sometimes strapped bombs to children and sent them to blow up US troops. So that puts US soldiers in a bad predicament. In the current conflict with the Middle East, I wouldn't put it past some of our enemies to use the same tactics. If you're in a war, it is possible that you will end up killing people that you might not have been specifically ordered to kill.

I still think women have it in them to perform well during war, even in combat. This goes back to my original post regarding the fact that women have, in the past, actually disguised themselves as men in order to do just that. But you know, I think most people are capable of incredible things during extreme times. A woman in the military nowadays doesn't have to hide her gender, and in fact gets special treatment. That right there eliminates a lot of the pressure of acting under extreme conditions.

[LifeMaiden]

There have been women who have disguised themselves as men indeed...there were some cases in the American Civil War. One of them...well, amazingly she was able to conceal her femininity in extremely close quarters with other men. She was a Union soldier whose identity as a woman was not revealed until she got wounded, and they had to take off her uniform and underclothes. There definitely have been women WARRIORS in history such as Queen Budacah, one of the early queens of pre-Christian England. So I'm not sure what that says about women 'not' being able to tolerate high levels of stress in battle.

I've had relatives who came back from World War II and the Korean War in serious shell shock. My uncle who witnessed the flame thrower who was shot and on fire was a member of the highly decorated 442nd, the all-Japanese American fighting unit of World War II, whose loyalty and dedication went contrary to the Internment, and to those who believed the ' Japs' born here couldn't be loyal even if they were American Citizens. He NEVER talked about the war except for that one incident witnessing a man burning to death.


But being a MEDIC in the war, he must have surely seen some things that were worth NOT remembering at all. Another great uncle fought in that same unit and came back so traumatized that he became a hermit, and died as one. He just simply could not cope with life after returning to the states from Europe.


Some women will say that because women do 'give birth' that's an okay reason to prove that women CAN stand pain and bloodshed. We've already gone through that argument somewhere in this thread I think.