Women In The Front Line. Is It Progress?

[meganiwish]

I know that I sleep safe in my bed because there are fighty men who are paid to look out for us, and I appreciate that. I'm not sure how I feel about women in combat. For myself, I'm not very combative.

[Shafted]

Call me old fashioned, but no. I'm not against it per say, but when it comes down to survival one reproducing female is worth many reproducing males. Some events in history the number of reproducing females was the key to survival.

[meganiwish]

Oh gosh, that's an interesting response. I was thinking on the lines that I know that violence is a part of life, and that those men are also part of why we can sleep safe.Are we better off for having women fight too? Isn't it a case that it's not that it's not a woman's job to fight, but that it's a woman's job not to fight? Oh dear, what a clumsy sentence. I do apologise. But you get my meaning.

[Shafted]

I've always thought of men and women not as equals, but equivalents. They each have equally important bit different roles to play.

[Amanda]

Progress would be no fighting at all.

[meganiwish]

Indeed.

[ilikekicks]

Chivalry is dead, feminism killed it. When the same physical standards are applied to both sexes, open up all the jobs. Till then, I dont see too many women humping a 110lb pack and gear for 20miles. Im all for equality, nothing else till then.

[Shafted]

Chivalry is dead, feminism killed it.

Sad but true. Still I go out of my way to be a gentleman, just to spite it. Okay not only.

[meganiwish]

Oh no, I've had lots of people be chivalrous to me. On this very site, indeed.

[PatsyCline]

When the same physical standards are applied to both sexes, open up all the jobs. Till then, I dont see too many women humping a 110lb pack and gear for 20miles.

Im all for equality, nothing else till then.

Completely agree. I'm sure there are men who can't meet certain standards and thus are not allowed, and the same standard should be applied to women.

Women having been flying everything from transports to fighters and there isn't a problem.

[FreshinHeels]

If this http://www.huffingto..._n_2536939.html also happens

to woman I'm all for it

Edited January 24, 2013 by FreshinHeels

[meganiwish]

I don't see this as an equality issue. The half of the population that were previously firmly non-combatant have now become potentially combatant. And that's progress?

[saudade]

Disclaimer: I've been drinking, so maybe i'm off on this ramble but whatever, don't care.

Yes it is progress, we just won't see the end results, positive or negative, likely both, of it in our lifetimes.

I'm more amused that we have such an aversion towards it in this thread. We have a very "western" viewpoint to this. Not every culture of humans in history had only male warriors. For example it was common amongst Native American tribes to have both men and women warriors fighting alongside each other, i'd bring up other examples but google is a click and type away. If we are to laud Bill Gates addressing a rather segregated Saudi Arabian audience about how realistic an expectation of them being a top 10 technology country by 2010 and responding with "Well, if you're not fuly utilizing half the talent in the country, you're not going to get too close to the Top 10", we're not behaving consistently by bemoaning this change. Having women experience this and coming back with their viewpoints on the situation will only hasten change. It might also help things out much like the IRA did only a few decades ago by saying, ok now we know what happens, and we don't want to put anyone in this situation. Compare this with Spartan women/wives, who famously told their sons/husbands on your shield or carrying it. Think about the societal expectations and implications this engenders and compare and contrast how both our societies treated war and its role in life and death.

Every person is different, I'm sure there are some women that have only wanted to be on a front line in a combat situation, now they get their chance. That is progress. Much like there are men that have never wanted anything to do with their cultures masculinity. Both are progress away from entrenched ideas.

My reason for being so for this is crap like this (the quote below) mans opinion. What matters is results, if you pass the tests required as male or female, done, you're in and earned it. But this viewpoint is what is getting attacked with this change and it isn't going to go out without a fight. It is masked in the same arguments that women are "worth" more reproductively than men. Only inverted inwards in that "everyone" knows men went out hunting they became adapted for this and are physically stronger that women.

Rep. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, has said he doesn't think women are physically capable of combat duty.

"To have women serving in infantry ... could impair the mission essential task of those units, and that's been proven in study after study," he told radio host Laura Ingraham this month. "It's nature -- upper body strength and physical movements and speed and endurance and so forth."

I'll be blunt, crap like this makes me want to punch the guy in the liver for being so.... narrow in thinking. He's justifying his existing belief in any way he can. And where that is failing he's being disingenuous and just flat out bringing out worry words that they "could impair the mission", with no qualification other than: boogy boogy boogy. Even a 2 year old has better arguments. But I'm being insulting to 2 year old's intelligences with that equivocation. I am speaking of a politician here so I don't expect much intelligence or ability to actually come close to saying something non weasely.

Also I don't see how Chivalry fits into this context at all, but maybe I need more alcohol, or less.

I'm betting I'm totally pulling this http://xkcd.com/386/ off with this reply. Hopefully I don't make anyone angry, if so just play a few rounds of http://kittenwar.com/ and be happy. I'm totally winning that game.

[Shafted]

Alcohol doesn't seem to affect the way I think, just the way I interface with the world. And as far as chivalry, I think as males we have a emotional need to protect the females. A woman is a terrible "thing" to waste. And as males the senseless death of woman and children is a tragedy in our eyes.

[Bubba136]

Like shoes. Try them first. Test them under fire and then make your comment....

[ilikekicks]

Disclaimer: I've been drinking, so maybe i'm off on this ramble but whatever, don't care.

Alas, the spirits brings out the truth ! Such is always a welcomed thing

Every person is different, I'm sure there are some women that have only wanted to be on a front line in a combat situation, now they get their chance. That is progress. Much like there are men that have never wanted anything to do with their cultures masculinity. Both are progress away from entrenched ideas.

Ive known people whom wished to go to combat. Some never returned. Those whom wishes such and experienced it realized that they shouldnt have ' wished ' for such to begin with.

My reason for being so for this is crap like this (the quote below) mans opinion. What matters is results, if you pass the tests required as male or female, done, you're in and earned it. But this viewpoint is what is getting attacked with this change and it isn't going to go out without a fight. It is masked in the same arguments that women are "worth" more reproductively than men. Only inverted inwards in that "everyone" knows men went out hunting they became adapted for this and are physically stronger that women.

Heres the problem as I see it. Granted, my time was over 20 years ago ( when I was 17 ).

As a guy, I had to run 3 miles in 18 minutes. I had to do 20 dead hang pullups and 80 situps in 2 minutes. To be an ' operator ' or shat is known as ' special forces ', the standards were even higher.

For women, at the time, they had to run a mile and a half in 16 minutes, hold on to the pullup bar with their chin over it for a minimum of 30 seconds and do 50 situps in one minute.

The physical standards were scored the same for the Rifle Range and NCO training/MCI's. The uniform and grooming regulations were WAY different also. Yet, both were considered for the same promotion.

What WILL happen in the situation now.. Women *MIGHT* all be forced into the same physical standards as men. The opposite could happen but then our ( U.S. ) forces wouldnt be half of what they are.

I do know, there are some women that are stronger, faster, and better equipped ( mentally ) then many of their male counterparts. Where the problem comes to a head is when those women decide they want the standard raised, are ALL the women now going to have to shave their heads and wear a ' high and tight '. How about uniform regulations? ALL of the ' double standards ' must go.

I'll be blunt, crap like this makes me want to punch the guy in the liver for being so.... narrow in thinking.

I repaired communications equipment. There were women in my field repairing the same systems. I couldnt see ANY of them being able to live without their makeup, their bras, ear-rings.. basically.. they would be ' men '.

What you call ' narrow thinking ' essentially boils down to whats called ' combat effectiveness and ' unit coercion '. If you have neither, you WILL loose on the battlefield every time.

He's justifying his existing belief in any way he can. And where that is failing he's being disingenuous and just flat out bringing out worry words that they "could impair the mission", with no qualification other than: boogy boogy boogy. Even a 2 year old has better arguments. But I'm being insulting to 2 year old's intelligences with that equivocation. I am speaking of a politician here so I don't expect much intelligence or ability to actually come close to saying something non weasely.

Have you looked into the background of the person your speaking of? Might they be a decorated veteran whom has the experience of doing such service? Might they have a real world insite into what the conversation is about?

Look at what the guy said :

"To have women serving in infantry ... could impair the mission essential task of those units, and that's been proven in study after study,"

Look what I posted as the PFT ( Physical fitness testing ) for the US Marines.. DO you REALLY believe women could carry a full ruck with equipment that is needed to complete a mission up a hill and engage?

I was in the best shape of my life when I served and a 110lb pack, rifle and ammo with me, I barely made some of the marches. I barely completed some of the obstacle courses. I was all of 130lbs back then and 5 foot 9. Thats about the average size of todays women.

Theres a reason I dont often mention that Im a Veteran. Many people just dont understand why the system that is in place is there. Some will say ' Its unfair! Its all wrong! ' until you have to actually get a War done. The Stakes are pretty high and theres no room for ' Social Experiments '.

[Heelster]

I have some mixed emotions on this one. In general. I don't think this was such a wise move. I can see some possibilities though. I have seen some young women who have the physical capabilities,the mental fortitude, and even some damned good marksmanship. Under pressure - Don't know. I'm willing to wait and see how this all pans out.

[Shafted]

If I had one thing to say to women wanting to serve on the front line it would be this. Do not let your ambition override your sense of good judgement. Some women are indeed fit for front line duty, and I would be grateful for their contribution. Now I hate to say the following, but here it goes. If Bambi the Wonder Bimbo wanted to be a front line solder, I would have serious reservations., probably more so than Dirk the dumbass I admire this desire in them to get in there with the guys and if it was just a matter of pulling the trigger when they need to for their country and even more importantly for their own survival, well I know they can do this. But what about hand to hand combat with a man several times their size with the same training. I know I'm not up to the task. The other thing to understand for you ladies interested, Based on my post #14 your very presence on the the battlefield could be a fatal distraction. It would be to me anyway.

[meganiwish]

110lbs, gosh! I couldn't even pick that up. I can carry 200 books, but only in my head.

[hoverfly]

Call me old fashioned, but no. I'm not against it per say, but when it comes down to survival one reproducing female is worth many reproducing males. Some events in history the number of reproducing females was the key to survival.

Right now the world is over populated, don't get me wrong I am for women equality. But at this time do we need them to be baby production factories? Ahhh.... no. Until then if they want to fight on the ground or in the air, go for it!

[Shafted]

Right now the world is over populated,

Prove it, no ones done it yet. It's not just you. When we start culling the population on something that has no scientific basis, it merely becomes the slaughter of the innocent. Remember the one they choose to kill may be you.

[hoverfly]

Prove it, no ones done it yet. It's not just you. When we start culling the population on something that has no scientific basis, it merely becomes the slaughter of the innocent. Remember the one they choose to kill may be you.

In many third world countries around the world (not just one or two) when ever did we hear in our life time until 2009, that there were food riots do to volatile oil price increases in transportation costs? Hopefully it won't happen again, but with the current drought in the central U.S. Price increases of 3 to 4 percent each year for the next few years will have a devastating effect on the poor. Laws of economics, supply and demand. Supply is short, demand is high, prices are high people go hungry, they riot and take what you have. It's not a culling, it's survival of the fittest. Look up Easter Islandand sustainability. The current state of the planet is not sustainable.

[Shafted]

In many third world countries around the world (not just one or two) when ever did we hear in our life time until 2009, that there were food riots do to volatile oil price increases in transportation costs? Hopefully it won't happen again, but with the current drought in the central U.S. Price increases of 3 to 4 percent each year for the next few years will have a devastating effect on the poor. Laws of economics, supply and demand. Supply is short, demand is high, prices are high people go hungry, they riot and take what you have. It's not a culling, it's survival of the fittest. Look up Easter Islandand sustainability. The current state of the planet is not sustainable.

Start eating corn instead of burning it dude.

[meganiwish]

Well. supply and demand, that's the rich man's excuse. But it takes something like 16 Calories to walk a mile and something like 3000 Calories to drive a mile. Go figure, as the vernacular has it. Still, we're getting a little off topic. Saudade makes a fair point when he mentions other cultures. But we're talking about something that's happening in western liberal society, not in history. Women might have been fighters in the past, but in the 'western ' world haven't been for centuries. I'm troubled by them turning non combatants into combatants. Very well put, Shafted. A kind of modern swords to ploughshares.

[hoverfly]

Start eating corn instead of burning it dude.

Pigs went to the slaughter house early in the last few months, ham was cheap but beef is all ready 7 dollars a pound around where I live. Most of the corn grown in the U.S. goes to feed and human consumption. What corn that does go into fuel is not that a huge amount in the over all picture. It's mainly cheaper imported sugar cane ethanol from South America is what we burn in our cars.

[Shafted]

Pigs went to the slaughter house early in the last few months, ham was cheap but beef is all ready 7 dollars a pound around where I live. Most of the corn grown in the U.S. goes to feed and human consumption. What corn that does go into fuel is not that a huge amount in the over all picture. It's mainly cheaper imported sugar cane ethanol from South America is what we burn in our cars.

Believe what you want to believe, Hoverfly. Myself, I no longer rely on the commercial food chain as you know it. Once you stop trying to feed people with money and teach them how to provide for themselves it's a great life. I know, I'm living it. I work 12 to 20 hours a week and it provides for all my needs and more, so please don't generalize.

Perhaps you should look at some facts here.

http://www.icis.com/...garcane-vs.html

This data would seem to disagree with you and at the very least what you quoted was outdated. It was the second hit for the search criteria of "prices corn versus sugar cane" the first was a pdf.

You still may yet prove me wrong, but your not off to a good start, but don't worry my intent is without malice. Who knows this might be a great exercise in data acquisition for the both of us. I have personally met several poor people that can't afford food, but they can afford that new 42 inch plasma television.

PM me if you want to talk, it's time to get this topic back on track.

I will personally start a thread telling the membership I was wrong if that is the case based on information available to all of us.

[Amanda]

Gosh, the commercial food chain, now there's a topic. Thank you shafted for derailing the thread. By the way, have you seen this super film about commercial food in the USA? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqRbKZr_WF4

[ilikekicks]

Gosh, the commercial food chain, now there's a topic. Thank you shafted for derailing the thread.

Actually, Miss ' Amanda ', It was Hoverfly whom introduced the the concept of over population of the planet and the food chain.

[Amanda]

Actually, Miss ' Amanda ', It was Hoverfly whom introduced the the concept of over population of the planet and the food chain.

How very interesting. Thank you

[saudade]

Gosh, the commercial food chain, now there's a topic. Thank you shafted for derailing the thread.

By the way, have you seen this super film about commercial food in the USA?

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqRbKZr_WF4

I grew up on a farm, there is a reason I like the Paleo diets' emphasis on food quality. We learn more and more that how both animals and plants are raised affects their nutritional quality. Also, buy meat and stuff from small farmers/ranchers/etc... if you dislike commercial agriculture you need to vote with your wallet. It is what it is because of us buying it.