What's to say that the male soldiers aren't already doing that with eachother?

don't ask, don't tell.

true, but at least male soldiers aren't as prone to getting pregnant.

When my Dad was drafted in the Norwegian army, the surest way to get thrown out was by pretending to be homosexual and lots of guys did exactly that, found someone else that didn't want to be there either and they.....got thrown out. My Dad didn't, though. As far I know..

Actually, they do see action. UN peacekeeping missions in Kosovo et cetera.
It's just that we haven't been to war since Gustavius III was king.

Yes. Prostitution is pretty freaken global, ya know. If soldiers are really that horny...

I think it's fine for women to be in the Red Cross, or some where far from danger. If you want to have a fighting force composed of men and women, there are allot of extra things you have to do (compensate for women's personal needs, keep the soldiers from getting involved in sexual relations during deployment, ect.) It is much easier and simpler to have only one sex do the fighting. Also, since there are more men who are able and willing to fight, we should have the men do it. Remember, war should not be some social experiment. The point of war is to protect our country, not make sure every thing is perfectly equal. There *are* differences between a man and a woman, and the sooner we accept that the better. Just because men and women are different doesn’t mean one is better than the other.

Has no one seen Kill Bill?

boy, I'm seeing red, hopefully it won't effect my ability to think straight.

A) my menstrual cycle has never stopped my ability to do anything. if anything, we get more agressive. seriously, the only concern is bringing tampons or pads, and if you forget, well you'll just have bloody underwear, nothing you can do aobut that. but we would not just miss 3 or 4 days of action. I mean, seriously. I would love to stay home from school during my period, but unfortunatley, that's not a valid excuse.

B) honey, it takes 2 to tango. If the men can't control themselves, they'll easily turn to a prostitute.

C) if a woman has to go through the same training and meet the same requirements, she'll be just as able to hurl a guy out of a burning tank as the next guy. If the requirements were lower, she wouldn't, which is why they should meet the same requirements.

D) goes along with C. A woman would have to go through the same training, so she would be just as able to carry her pack as the next guy. most girls DO NOT weigh 40-120 pounds, I don't know what girls you know. a muscular girl would easily weigh 160+

there were other opints, but I cna't remeber any of them. Blast it all and they were better than what I had too. anyway, it's true that men and women have differences, but if they can keep up with the next guy, why can't they fight? seriously. I would never say that the standards should be lower, that's just stupid. the standards are there for a reason- so that everyone on the battlefield is capable and to put their fellow soldiers at the least amout of risk possible. but IF a girl can meet those standards, i see no reason not to let them in combat. They know what they're getting into (even the POW torture thing. yes it would suck, but they know what they're getting into).

errr...yeah that's all I can tihnk of right now.

Sugarless5 said a lot of what I was going to comment on, so I'll just comment on the sexual relations part.

I can think of two ways to try and solve a problem like this. THe first is have it as law that if a man and a woman are both in the same combat MOS and have relations, they can not serve in the same company. The problem here is that it would probably be harder to detect the relation if they were trying to actively hide it.

Make it so combat role MOS are segregated so that you have exclusively male companies and exclusively female companies.

However, neither of these are perfect. There is a plausible solution out there, I just haven't thought of it yet.

..Right, which is basically my point, and why I can't understand that mavispoo thinks what I'm saying is "utter crap". If anything, Roach here seems to have the most dismal view of woman capablities out of everyone on this thread, yet she is agreeing with him left and right. Bias.. 'course not.. :p

By the way, if woman wouldn't make capable pilots due to their "spacial handicaps", surely you believe their drivers' licenses should be taken away? Driving, if anything, requires more spacial competence than flying does. Keeping a formation is about as difficult as staying in the right lane. And in the air, you don't need depth preception, as you do when stopping behind another car at a stoplight. By your logic, women are unfit to drive.

This is the exact same thing most people thought about women in the workforce/business 100 years ago. They thought they couldn't handle it. Well, they have surely proven us wrong, but only because we have (slowly) let them prove themselves. Don't we owe it to women to prove to us that they have what it takes?

Matching the men would be the best way of doing things, so that everyone's nice and equal.

Is psychological training given in the Army?

sugarless, I can think of five women I know of who take at least one day of sick leave a month because of horrible cramps. It may not be the case for you, but for some women, it is a problem. Now I don't know why you dredged that point up again, I was fairly sure I agreed to drop it.

Yes, it does take two to tango, so why supply the second? It's like having an AA support group meet in a Budweiser bottling plant. Why give them the distraction when there's business to be done?

Right, I suppose that any woman who can carry 115%+ of her own body weight (which is what would be required to rescue a man, and the 33% less muscle mass, low center of gravity with skinnier, more resistance to lower body movement, and 15% less O2 carrying capability would make this an amazing feat) should be allowed in a tank.

Key word in my statement "practically." Most girls I know who are in good physical condition are somewhere between 120-140 lbs. 160+ lbs is stretching it, as that's about the weight of a man in decent physical condition.

May I also point out that poor hygienic conditions would also encourage infections in women? The "soldier's bath" is typically nothing more than a wet baby-wipe that the soldiers use to scrub their armpits and groins. Such conditions would encourage urinary tract infections in women.

I know the jist of what the capabilities of men and women are. Psychologically and physically. I can't help that men tend to luck out when it comes to endurance and strength.

I hate to break it to you, but combat piloting requires far more spatial understanding and reflexes than any traffic condition. Cars only have to worry about two dimensions, and only need to drive in a straight line. Piloting requires three dimensions, and in some aircraft, you're dodging in and out of tree lines, canyons, and rock formations. Though, I'd like to point out that women tend to have more fender-benders than men.

No, if anything, women are more capable than men in an office environment, and I'm surprised it took them so long to show us exactly what their made off.

how many of the women you know want to go into the military? And out of 25 girls I know, 1 has used that excuse to stay home...and she only used it TWICE. And sorry, I wasn't aware that we dropped it.

because people aren't bottles of beer. The second is there, no matter what town you're in.

again with this. a woman would have to prove herself able in her training. if she couldn't lift the weight, she wouldn't be allowed on the battlefield to begin with.

ouch, that one hurt. I weigh 157, and up until 1 or 2 months ago, I was 165. I am not by any stretch of the imagination overweight or even chubby or pudgy (trust me, being a girl, I know all of my flaws) and I really really wish I could post a picture to prove it. (I'm 5'8", and not even abnormaly tall) girls are getting bigger.

the infections could be a problem, I see where you're coming from with that, but I don't think it's a big enough problem to stop all women from fighting.

Oh and freelance, I believe it was: I think her umbrage with what you said was the feminists want all the benefits but no responsibility remark. that and the implication that feminists want to have more rights than guys, rather than equal rights.

And you, being a woman, and surrounded by women, should know that the physiology of all of you is different. And just because it doesn't effect one of you very much, doesn't mean it doesn't effect someone else far worse.

Yeah, except that when men are thinking with their **** the woman might as well be an inanimate object. Yes, the second is in any town. Towns aren't war zones, soldiers typically go into towns when they're on down time. They can think about sex during down time, that's fine, but why give them the distraction and opportunity during combat situations?

Ok, you're fit, can you carry a 120lbs pack all day? Would you be able to fire your 9lbs rifle while carrying that pack? Would you be able to navigate most terrain while carrying that?

But, as far as I can tell, it's true for a lot of women. They applaud the equality they've earned in society, but when anyone brings up the thought of drafting women, they go into this "well we don't want the bad stuff!" routine.

of course not, but if I wanted it enough to work up to it I could. a woman of my size would be able to carry 120lbs all day and fire a 90 lb rifle. I know VERY few (if any) guys who could do that off the cuff either. It takes training and excersize.

Oh, and it effects me pretty bad. to the point of rolling on the ground (or walking around school) in a cold sweat, wishing I were dead and throwing up copiously. but that's only on a bad day and if we're out of pamprin but seriously, you're exactly right. it depends greatly on the person. if you can't handle it, don't go.

You implication is that WOMEN can't go into battle because MEN may not be able to tihnk straight. I have no sympathy in this situation. sorry, but if your attention is that easily diverted, don't go into battle, what else would you like me to say. again, I'm sorry but if you're suggesting someone who may be a highly skilled and capable fighter should not be allowed to fight because some perverted little brat can't handle it, tough.

freelancer- only he hypocritical ones, not all feminists are hypocrytes, though I guess my opinion on this isn't valid seeing as how even if a draft for women went into effect, I couldn't be drafted, being diabetic.

Not a 90 lbs rifle, a 9 lbs...

And most men can carry that weight, at least much sooner than most women. And for much a much greater distance.

And it's not just men who wouldn't be able to think straight. Women have desires. They'd be surrounded by men. Why hinder everyone? Sure, I suppose you could seperate the women and the men on the field. It's not like that'd be a logistical nightmare...

I'm not saying all women, but some, just can't do what most men do. The job I have now, the women have it easy. The guys take out the garbage, stock the beer etc. The women always complain about this equal rights crap, but you ask them to take out trash or lift a case of beer and they don't want to.
"I'm not strong enough to take out the trash"
'Err, it has wheels on it, you just wheel it out'
"I can't do the beer, it's to much work, and it's to heavy"
'All you need to do is put one case at a time onto the cart then roll it to the bar, the bartender does the rest'

Another classic is the girls that don't want to ruin their hair, makeup, nails blah blah blah, which means they won't do much more then lift open their makeup cases. Once again not ALL women, but the majority in my school are all stuck up with the "I'm better then you because I have large breasts and a thin waist" attitude. I don't know about you, but I want my military on task and such, not trying to paint their nails in a firefight.

Then there are the women who act like men. Or the women who act like women but know when to get serious. They can go into the military, but the fact is most girls just can't do everything a guy can do. Not being sexist, even though I may come off that way but...

SAJN_Master: that last group would be the group I'm talking about. and I would find those girls highly obnoxious. I emptied the trash all the time and it DIDN'T have wheels and if was from a full day of camp with 150 or so little kids. I didn't have a problem with it (well it was a little gross when it leaked but it's part of the job). I don't know how you put up with it.

Roach- all I'm saying is if she CAN lift it and if she CAN meet the same standards men have to meet, why can't she go into combat? You guys don't seem to realize that not ALL women would want this, in fact it would only be a small percentage.

and I don't think separating men and women would be the answer at all. yes, women have desires, but in the heat of the moment, in a situation where thier life and the lives of her comrades are in the line, sex would be the last thing on their minds. I would think it would be the same for men, but not being male, I wouldn't know.

It's amazing how little time of "combat" is actually a fire fight. A bit of it is sitting around and watching and waiting. People get bored. People stop paying attention. Why supply another distraction?

And assuming she can meet the requirements and all that, what about the fact that her bones are more likely to break? That she's more likely to dislocate a joint? That she's more likely to OD on drugs a field medic may administer to her if she were injured? That she's more likely to have severe psychological trauma, depression, and shock? Why take that risk?

Do you honestly believe people will be sitting there in the bushes, waiting for the enemy and decide they're bored, so hey! why not fool around a little? I mean really. it's not just going to be 1 guy and 1 girl. someone in the midst of the troop with be able to keep his head in the presence on a girl.

and she should drink more milk! But seriously, bones don't just break, something happens to break them. It's not like girls are brittle, fragile little peices of glass. in the event that something would happen to break her bone, it's not like she would be the only injured one. should men with calcium defincies be prohibited from fighting? Medic should be trained so that wouldn't happen. It's not like it would kill him to give her a lower dosage. And actually, women are more able to compartmentalize and rationalize things, they would actually be less likely to come back with trauma, depression and schock. That's not to say none will, but so will guys.

shouldn't we welcome anyone willing to fight for our country instead of trying to find reasons why they shouldn't?

Let's see...soldiers already set up poker games while in the field when boredom strikes, why not sex?

No, women have different coping mechanisms than men do, but the amount of stress to trigger shock and depression for women is two folds that of men. It's very well documented that women are far more prone to mental illness than men.

Sometimes, medics can't lower the dosage, in a situation where a few seconds means life or death, he can't try to guess when to take out the pre-loaded needles he's supplied with.

And yes, something has to happen to break bones, like a strong impact. Like the impact of a bullet hitting ceramic armor. Like falling while running through obstacles. Having debris hit you. The point is, the smaller, weaker bones of a woman would break more easily than her male counterparts. And in the case of the ceramic tiles breaking ribs, she'd probably be better off letting the bullet penetrate.

Sure, let's welcome everyone who wants to fight. Those men in wheelchairs can't keep up with the regualr soldiers, ah, but what the hell, let's give them a rifle and see what they can do. There's a reason there are standards. It's so every soldier can carry their own weight, and no one needs to pick up their slack.

I completely, totally, and utterly agree with Roach.

From what he said there's a few major points that you can't deny:

1) As far as the Air Force goes, women get in more accidents in cars, and hell, that's two dimensions. That's why insurance is lower for women. Imagine a woman who's highly inept at driving trying to pilot a helicopter just above the treeline, or some similar event.

2) Infections. Women are much, MUCH more prone to infections. Not to mention breaking bones.

3) Pregnancy. It can't be ignored.

There are some other, more minor issues, but those really just tell me that women can NOT be in combat roles. Not to mention hazing, among other problems within the troop.

Just so you know, I originally voted "If they can cut it, let them in".

Wrong, and wrong. Men get in more accidents; woman get in more fender benders. There's a difference. Womens' insurance is less because they get in less accidents. Most pin it on the testosterone/road rage aspect.

The point is, they hit other cars more often.

If women got into more accidents why would their insurance be LOWER. People who get in accidents have higher insurance. Plus with training a women can fly a helicopter just as well as a man. You know belive it or not the MEN go into training as well.



With what your going to do in the army, I don't see how bones would mean jack crap. Anything on a battlefield that is going to break a womens bone is proably going to break a mans as well. Infections? Running around in iraq, falling down, getting cut, caught in rain storms doesn't seem much like you'll get anymore infections then a female construction worker, who works around dirt, power tools and in the rain and such all day. (Bad example? proably, but it's all I can think of right now.)



What the....Why would you go into the army pregnant?! Or why would you risk having sex with all your army fellows?! Whore. A pregnant lady wouldn't go into the army, and I'm pretty sure if you get pregant whle your in iraq or something they wouldn't...GAH, I just don't feel like explaining such a stupid thing. >.<

You can't train the spatial understanding into a woman. That'd be like saying you could train the night-vision of a woman into a man.

A female construction worker has the opportunity to go home at the end of the day and bathe, and has the proper facilities to relieve her system of waste.

The Navy already has problems of female sailors becoming pregnant. You're "why would women risk pregnancy" has holes. People have urges and don't always think. Women in poverty reproduce. Women in high-paying jobs reproduce. Women in high-risk areas reproduce.

This is the one statement that pisses me off. What the hell has she and many other people been saying this entire god damn time? "If you can't keep up, then you don't belong."

What? Woman's insurance is lower because they DON'T get in as many car accidents as guys. The insurance companies make those that get into crashes pay more. Have you ever gotten in a crash and had your insurance bill lowered?

errr...women get in less accidents, which is why insurance is lower. the other 2 I can see, but insurance is lower for women because they're less likely to get in an accident, so the insurance company is less likely to have to pay for damages and repairs, etc...

I guess we should just agree to disagree, seeing as how we're never going to convince each other, but just for the record, I'm usually very very even tempered (I'm usually labeled the peacemaker), I just get frustrated when someone says I can't do something. It's he same as when someone goes "can you eat that?" YES! I've been diabetic for 9 years I know what I'm doing!!!
but I digress.

Oh and thanks Kieran and Sajn (obviously you're not replying for me but I'm relieved to have someone pick up my slack while I'm eating)

I'm not going to argue the women in combat role as I haven't made up my mind but in regards to this and the earlier comment about VO2, I was interested in your reasoning for this.

Given that the muscle power-to-weight ratio is identical between men and women, a women who acheives the physical capacity standards is going to have an equal amount of muscle and therefore similar weight (albeit a the lower end of the spectrum) in comparison to a man. Wouldn't this then negate some of the drug aspect as many drugs are administered on a U/kg basis? Especially for painkillers which are more likely to be administered in combat.

Likewise in regards to the VO2 comment. Vo2 is a function of active muscle and for a women to reach the standard she is going to have a similar absolute muscle mass, which implies similar capacity. Also I don't think the bones issue is that much of a concern. For a women to reach the same physical standard as a man, her physiology is going to more closely resemble that of a man, and given the amount of physical training she will be doing, her bones will be considerably denser than the average woman

Any thoughts? I'm not arguing, I just think that if a women reaches the same standard as a men, her physiology is going to be similar to a man (and therefore not normal for a woman) so using values for an average women is slightly erroneous. I'm not saying that this is enough to throw women into front-line combat as I think the infection/pregnancy/POW issues are still relevant.

If you want to get technical, men hit other cars more often. It's only once you compensate for the fact men drive more miles than women that you discover women get in more accidents per mile driven (albeit they cause far less property damage per accident). Even then, the difference is statistically irrelevant. It's the same for men and women. The only reason insurance rates are the way the are is that men drive more miles than women (by a really large margin, actually), so they are at higher risk. This is all according to the U.S. Transportation Department.

What do you mean? As in being psychologically fit or being a member of PsyOps?

Psychology training is your drill Sargent (frelling frenchies, I can't spell that word!)

But I consider an accident including fender benders. Sorry if I misrepresented.

If you're in a helicopter, going faster than the average car, unable to stop or slow down easily at all, and you hit something, your *** is grass. Sorry buddy. Man or woman, you, and whoever was in your copter, probably just died. That's what I mean. And in situations like the one I explained, that's a very, very, pertinent reason to not allow women in a combat situation.

SAJN--Pretty much all of Roach's replies are good enough. Breaking bones, also, is a big deal. What if a woman's running, and trips and falls over a sand dune? Or falls from about a 12 foot height (building, cliff, etc). A lot of men can get away from this scratched and bruised. I've seen many girls (not 'girly' girls) break bones from less.

WHAT?! a sand dune?

Right. Spatial understanding is something nearly all men have. during neolithic times, it was crucial for us to have good depth perception to hit the delicious mammoth with our spear so we could take it back to the cave for the women to cook for dinner, or use arrows and rocks to drive away the saber tooth tigers that were threatening our tribe.

Men have always been the warriors and hunters. why should this change now?

The current topic of interest IS desert warfare. Besides, I offered another example. Oh and just in case I need to explain myself--imagine if you trip or fall on a sand dune, and you go rolling. Imagine if it's a BIG sand dune. That's a lot of heavy impacting on what can be a rather steep surface.

rolling down a steep pile of sand seems kind of fun, unless sand gets into your a**.