I heard that women are great snipers (more steady hands?), able pilots, and that most of the world top assassins are women? I also heard women are better at being cautious then men? They would most likely be better at intelligence gathering too. Regardless, I think women should be part of the draft. After all, they are always talking about equality.


Kill Bill actually does prove a point, women can be quite vicious. Ever seen two girls fight over some guy out of jealously? Not only that, but al ong time ago, I think heard of a woman who sliced a "sausage" because her husband was cheating on her.

I'm willing to wager you've never actually been near a sand dune. The notion of tripping over a sand dune is silly. And if you somehow DID manage it, rolling down a sand dune is like landing on a pile of pillows.

Lemme guess, more ninjas are women too? Get some sources.

Equality actually has little to do with this, most women either aren't capable of meeting men's entry requirements, or aren't interested in front-line combat roles. I don't see any good reason why the entire system should be thrown out of whack because of a handful of GI Jane Feminists want to prove a point.

Except that's not what I responding to at all. I was responding to her comment about us welcoming those who want to fight, and not try to stop them.

Run2, that's my point. Women aren't designed to have similar muscle mass ratios. They don't have the testosterone, nutrient capacity, hemoglobin ratios, or bone density to support the muscle. Even with excessive training, a woman would lack the levels of calcitonin required to keep her bones dense. The female spinal column is a bit smaller than a man's, and would make it more difficult for her frame to support having the same muscle mass of a man her size. I just don't think a woman is equipped to catch up like that.

Freelancer, I'm afraid we're slightly spoiled, as Bruno is quite a bit softer than the sands of the far east.

Cloud, women have an edge over men when it comes to sniping, assassinating, and spying (though I'd demand sources to the piloting thing, as I cannot see anything that would help them aside from the extra 10 degrees of peripheral vision (though about 1/2 the distance)). Women tend not to lose focus as quickly as a man. A man will try to look for stimuli. I suppose you could try to stretch things a bit and say that their hand wouldn't vibrate the gun as much, as there's more fat between the gun and the veins in the hand. When it comes to espionage, men are willing to do quite a bit to sleep with a woman, and a woman can manipulate this to gather information. And since it's typically men in high-ranking political offices, there's plenty of opportunity to seduce sensitive material out of them. That's nothing new, that's not a big surprise.

Sugarless, I can't help that when someone says you can't do something, it makes you want to do it more. I can't help that men and women are different. You trying to make women out to be muscle machines would be like me trying to make men into birth machines.

And thank you, I've been trying to avoid flat out saying that. Sugarless mentioned something about not having any sympathy for men if they find women a distraction. Why replace proven soldiers with women who may not be able to do all the tasks of those men just to be "fair?" War isn't about being fair, war is about always having the edge on your adversary. I just don't see what edge women could provide in combat.

Yes! Along with all the extra hassles of having a mixed sex unit, it's just not right to give the soldiers all those extra distractions. Man naturally trys to protect women, and with all that gong on it's not going to make your fighting force better. "Sir we've lost the war, but we are way more equall than the other side!"

Even if women allowed into the military, it's still going to be mostly men because there are fewer women that can meet the standards than there are men that can. But there is still that percentage of women that CAN do the job. And if one of those women can do the job better than a particular guy can, I'd rather have the woman fighting than the guy. This isn't a gender issue with me. This is a merit issue. Basic and AIT are there to weed out those that can't do it, regardless of gender.

Both I and Sugarless have NOT been saying "We need more women in the military." We've been saying "Let those with the ability make use of those abilities, whither male, female, or it."

How many battles have you been in?

Ok. Let's assume a woman beefed up. Gained 50% of her muscle mass, 15% of her VO2, her body managed to increase its levels of testosterone, hemoglobin, and calcitonin. Her body's hormone cycles leveled out so she won't be at an increased risk for emotion-based thinking (and we'll just throw depression out the window, as a woman who can do this must have a healthy self-image). She's reached an incredible state of physical being. She's going to be alone, in a group of very aggressive, and very lonely men. She's going to be with them for weeks, maybe even months at a time. Do you not see where that could cause problems? What about the infections I mentioned earlier? What can we do to lower her risk of those? Would it be logistically logical to pre-load two sets of painkillers, one for the men, and one for the woman (Run, I'm thinking there's more than muscle mass that plays into the drugs. Perhaps a lack of enzymes to properly metabolize the drugs, like in the case of the effects of alcohol and other medicinal drugs on the sexes?)? And what about the risk of pregnancy? Is it fair that she'd get maternity leave? Would it be too harsh to require some form of sterilization for the duration of her term of duty?

Okay, mercy! You win! Kieran or sugarless can take up the slack on this one, I'm out.

I'd also like to mention Amazons, All female african tribes, all women band of knights, and other well known, and well feared groups of women around the world at different points in history.

JediKirby

I was under the impression that the Amazons were a myth established in ancient Greece to show the dangers of allowing women to rule society. I very well could be wrong on that though.

But yes, like you said, there have been groups of all women warriors. That's the thing though, they were all women. They didn't have to worry about the difficulties in logistics, tempo, and tension that would exist in mixed combat groups. Also, the type of warfare was a bit different. It wasn't nearly as fast-paced as modern combat.

My point was only about strength.

I agree with you that some women aren't fit for war, but you're simply being ignorant in thinking that women shouldn't be in military at all. I think you might seem a bit threatened. As well, you may have all the reasons in the world, still doesn't mean that a single woman can't shoot someone in the face any worst or any better than a man, and you'll just have to accept that.

JediKirby

Blech.

If that happened, no guy in the unit would want to touch her anyway.

Woah...were did I say women don't belong in the military? I said women don't belong in combat roles as they'd most likely hold men back and there'd be risks in putting them on the front line. But thanks for drawing conclusions without reading what I've been saying. And there's a lot more to combat than shooting someone in the face. If that's all it was, there'd be no need for basic training, or PDQs.

I really am waiting for a response from someone who can tell me how to get around all those problems. As soon as someone does that, I'm sold. I'd be all for putting women into combat situations. Hell, I'd even demand women were required to register for selective services.

Battlemechs. Or better yet, automated battle droids. But seriously, don't you agree that the advent of technology will only level the playing field in the future? I mean, hell, half our warfare nowadays is press a button and watch your target blow up. Someday infantry will be in that category, too.

Maybe. We're already seeing pilots and drivers being phased out.

I'm only replying to thins because I've already bowed out and I want to make myself clear. I never said I personally want to go into the military, that's not true at all, I just said I found it frustrating. and I wasn't blaming anything on you I was merely giving an explanation for going against my usual benevolent attitude. I was talking about me, not you.

P.S. I never made women out to be muscle machines, I pointed out that women aren't the fragile peices of glass you were making them out to be and that there are some who can keep up with men. not all women are muscular, but there are some out there who can keep up with guys and even beat them, not the majority but there are some.

Anyone can get an infection or disease and just because a woman has a cooch doesn't make it any more likely unless she gets stupid or has a pre-existing condition that has not developed yet, like gonorehea. But men can have things like that as well. This is where basic training comes in. One of the points of basic is to teach you to keep as healthy as possible under harsh conditons. A woman's main health worry isn't going to be her cooch, it's going to be her feet, just like any male soldier. And concerning periods and pregnancy: just have women take DEPO shots, which is a form of birth control which they or the state can pay for instead of taking pills. Not only does it make pregnancies impossible, but it also eliminates periods and the emotional roller coaster that comes with that. It is used quite commonly among civilians. If her emotional state is still sporadic, then this is the standard for her and she wouldn't be let into a combat role, just as a guy wouldn't be allowed in a combat role if he had emotional problems.

If there were sexual relations between two soldiers in the same company, as I've mentioned before, I would suggest disciplinary action(nothing major like dishonorable discharge though). They may be able to hide it for awhile, but officers(for the most part) aren't stupid. And it would be very hard to hide sexual relations in the first place when the entire unit is almost always together, whither it be in the field or in the barracks. They would have no privacy. Officers are a different story, but they are also by and large more responsible. If a relationship started, one of the two officers could easily transfer to a different unit to avoid disciplinary action and yet still be within a close enough proximity station-wise so they could see each other in off hours, if there are any. And all this is assuming you have co-ed units which isn't necessary.

You are trying to make it sound like some pencil thin valley girl dits from off the street could become an Infantry woman. These are the women that wouldn't make it, just like the 300 lb guys wouldn't be able to make it. Just because the majority of women could not become frontline soldiers doesn't mean none of them can. The entire point of requirements and qualifications is to make sure someone doesn't get a certain thing, whither it be a liscence, hand gun, or even a credit card, if they can't handle it. There are some women out there who could handle being a frontline soldier.

What I'm adovacted is subjecting female soldiers to the same requirements put on male soldiers. That way, the difference between a man and a woman in the same MOS is superficial.

We agree all too much for my comfort Keiran. Say something stupid and annoying about getting girls and I'll call you on it, then we can get back to the old days ^_^

JediKirby

The only thing we've ever disagreed on was meeting women Jedikirby. And no, I'm not going to tempt your wrath.

pheer

That would be true for the majority of women i.e. a "normal" woman, but if we keep the entry standards the same as the men, then any women who meets that criteria certaintly isn't going to be "normal" per se. I pretty much agree with everything you've said, but I don't know whether you've taken into account those women who don't fit the averages.

The entry standard seems like it could be meet by the majority of men if they do a some training, but only a minority of women would qualify, no matter how much training they do. I suspect that this minority may have similar characteristics to men. If a remember rightly, increased progesterone and decreased testoerone are two factors (of many undoubtedly) that limit bone density and muscle growth repsectively in women. But if you look at women body builders, they can certaintly beef themselves up (not to the extent that a male body builder can) and I'd imagine this would have to do with hormone ratios that are more similar to males.

I'm speculating about biochemistry and physiology purely out of interest here. Most women are simply not going to be able to meet the standard but a (small) minority would, since their physiology could be more similar to a man. I am not arguing either way for woman to be included or not in combat, but I do think it is an area that would be interesting to look at i.e. comparing those few women who can make the standard to a man to see if the physiological differences are still as profound as between an average female and male.

This is the only thing I'm going to touch on, as the rest of your post made enough sense and you did what I asked (I actually enjoyed the idea of DEPO shots, though you still haven't explained logistics).

The female reproductive system is far more prone to infections than the male. The male's is flushed out everytime he urinates, such is not true for a woman. Poor hygienic conditions and stress are the perfect recipie for an infection. I'm walking on a wire here. There are things that I can't say because the admins would probably deem it innapropriate.


Run, I suppose we should take into account the possibility of an extreme out there. A woman with naturally high testosterone, and perhaps some experience with estrogen blockers just may bridge part of the gap between male and female.

I still don't see any arguments for his "It'd be more trouble than it's worth" argument. Considering that we'd either have to put more effort into keeping the peace in a unit, or make single-sex units, it just wouldn't be feasible. Then imagine if we had about 100,000 (that's stretching it) women on the battlefield, and they got sent to war because they were in a position the men weren't. Imagine most of them died. Could you imagine all the feminists who would say that the army was being sexist in its unit selection?

After looking into the DEPO shot idea, I'm against it. Not only could it cause permanent infertility, but it does the opposite of what you claim, Kieran. The delivery of such a high dosage of progesterone into the female body has a high probability of causing weight gain, mood swings, osteoporosis, and irregular menstrual cycles initially. None of which would help a female soldier. So, we'd need a different method.

Not to belittle what you said, but theres no such thing as 'reverse discrimination'

its the same thing both ways. :p

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=discrimination

As long as people are different, there will never be equality. Anything stating otherwise is sophistry.

Yes women should be allowed military involvement - I wouldn't have met my girlfriend otherwise... I mean sure it's only army cadets and not the full blown army... but even so...

...and she'll hit me if I say they should go back to the kitchen. Hee hee

This aside however, since neither her and I are truly in the military, I would have to say that women shouldn't be allowed to fight with the men. It would create all kinds of in-squad relationships that would just detract from a soldier's focus, as would the presence of women nearby, even if they were segregated.

Hmm... I don't like the gist of your logic, Roach: "Some women would not be able to meet the military's standards, so all women should be kept out of combat". There's a large ammount of both genders that are unfit for combat duty, so such a major fallacy in your logic is not really excusable, though it could be forgiven.

Physically, the average normal weights for normal heightmen and women are 150lbs and 130lbs, respectively. I don't think the average weight of a man in the Army is 150, though. Isn't it somewhat more like 170-180, if not more? The army prefers the well-trained freaks of nature. Just because the normal people of either gender are no match for such physically "upper-crust" people, doesn't mean that a whole group shouldn't be in. Just as most of us men are not currently as good as those in the military, most women are below the standards as well; both genders would have to train to make the cut. Persuming that they can all meet the same standard, regardless of their body type, they should be allowed into combat. After all, much (but not all) of the difference in upper-body strength between the genders is due to social, not genetic, conditions: Girls are not encouraged to build upper-body strength as much, and boys (those that don't turn into geeks) generally are encouraged to favor rigorous physical activities that build upper-body strength. As a result, many adult women aren't anywhere near as physically strong as men.


I'll trust that that's a joke, and not an indicator that you lack intelligence; I hate attempting to prove stupid people wrong, because they cannot comprehend it. But as an answer for those that are stupid, a group of people can all be together and play poker; this isn't the case with sex, as most want to have it alone.

um...nope. Descrimination, as your link so helpfully explains is "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice". ie, treating a certain group of people worse than you would another because you think they are lower than yourself. Reverse descrimination is something that has only been recently recognised, the treatment of a group better than your own, in compensation.

They may both amount to people being treated differently for superficial reasons, but the logic behind them is very different, hence having different terms.

i havent read all the responses but women being waist deep in icky waters during that time of the month is no big deal because you know what, theres this thing called the birth control pill. people go months without pausing it for their menstrual week, so im sure if i was to go to war for my country, if i was in trenches, for a few months, id be sure to keep up wiht my pills adn not have it then. technology my friends, and medical advances.

That doesn't even make sense. It'd probably help if you had read :p


nottheking--it's not just physical differences, it's psychological differences, and the systems that we'd have to set up just so women would be able to serve 'normally'

First of all, I don't think you're in any position to question my intelligence. Second, physiological differences are the main factor between upper strength, not social influences. No matter how a woman is raised, she's only going to have the potential for 66% of a man's overall muscle potential.

And I'm not saying "some women can't, so no woman can," I'm saying "there are things that apply to all women that should be considered that should prevent women from entering combat roles until a way to correct the situation is found."

And I wasn't joking about the sex comment. A woman who could keep up with men physically is going to have an abnormally high testosterone level. Her sexual appetite is going to be at quite a bit higher level than normal women. Sexual tension will occur. Sexual frustration will occur. Sex just might occur. There's absolutely no reason to think that a man and a woman couldn't go AWOL and skip their patrol to go have sex when the amount of direct supervision over them is minimal in the field.

I think you'll find it far easier to persuade me one way or another if you leave the "you must be stupid so I'm not going to try" bull**** out of this.

Wolvie...I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Wading through bacteria infested water for long periods will cause infections, not pregnancy, and the pill won't do anything to prevent those.

Actually there are female ninjas, other wise the term "kunoichi" wouldn't exist. This is a bad source, but it's basically what I found using google.

Roach, by "able" I meant their skills as a pilot could probably be just as good as a man.

You mean aside from their natural lack of spatial understanding that would aid them greatly in piloting an aircraft?

I don't know how you can say all women lack spatial understanding. For one, I dare you to even make a model half as good as Jenny_Kitty, and secondly, it's a trait that can be trained up and learned.

I'm not good at debating, so I'll just say that I completely agree with Sugarless and Kieran on this.

Alright Free, perhaps it was a tad too generalized. I'm just saying, the base-female brain uses the same capacity males use for spatial understanding, for linguistics. Of course there are going to be some rare exceptions.

And that's fine, I might too, as soon as they answer some questions.

I stated that I hioped you realized what an absurd thing that was your quote I mentioned. Of course, as soon as I mentione the word "intellgence", you seem to have gone to pieces, and have effectively summed up my post with the two words, "You're stupid", which would be a incredibly poor summary, very far from what the post actually was.


Unbiased source? Last I recalled, the muscle mass ratio was closer to 8-10. Given that most men currently can't meet the physical requirements for combat duty, yet many, many, serve, goes to show that a lack of muscle mass is something that can be changed without too much difficulty, just serious effort and time. Even if comparative women and men, who have the same physical training, the woman will have less strength, if both are strong enough to meet all of a set of physical requirements, it shouldn't matter if the woman is still physically weaker.

As for the physiological influences, yes, they are responisble for a significant ammount of the difference, it is still the social stucture that discourages any improvement in a female's strength, thus resulting in a gap that gets much wider.


What I'm arguing is "if women can get past all blocks (gender-based or otherwise) that prevent them from being as safe in combat situations, there's no reason they shouldn't be in". What you're arguing is based upon a generalization that all women have some things that count against their viability for combat, so none should be in combat". That is effectively what I summed up your argument as, as it is currently quite possible for women to get arround such problems, as we've been saying.


Testosterone isn't the sole component of a person's libido. Estrogen (which is at a very low level in men, but very high in women) is an equally potent component. However, while such physical training would increase a woman's testosterone level, it would simultaneously decrease their estrogen level, resulting in decreasing their libido, not increasing it. Otherwise, according to your logic, healthy women alway have a much lower sexual apetite than healthy men.


Generally, birth control medication has been shown to also decrease the chance for infection, as less active genetalia is less open to pathogens.