SPLIT--> Women in the Military

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by AEON

Actually, quite a bit. Please look up the training US Army Ranger School.

Thanks but no thanks-because I don't need to read that to know instinctively what women in the military are capable of. We all bleed the same blood and if your life is on the line please tell me you would give one ounce of thought as to whether or not a woman who was saving it could perform in the US Army Ranger School every bit as well as you can (if you would well I have serious questions about that and why). I'm the daughter of an Army Purple Heart recipient, so I think I know a thing or two about the Army too.

When you're in the Army for this country, you're in in for the defense of all citizens equally-male and female. And if you're working for defense of the United States and what it is supposed to stand for, certainly you (the general you and you in particular) can live and shower and whatever else with females 24 7 and still function normally and professionally. I think in the bigger picture, it's a small thing to ask for from those who defend liberty and justice for all.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by diamond

posts yes.
however in real life <> wins thru the charm offensive.

Offensive being the operative word?

Please stop calling yourself <>. it weirds me out

Who are you now, Prince?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

however in real life <> wins

Well, I've heard stories to the contrary...

[diamond]

stories, only stories..

<>

[AEON]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

...please tell me you would give one ounce of thought as to whether or not a woman who was saving it could perform in the US Army Ranger School....

If a woman was shooting a pisto at a criminal, you are right. If I were putting together a mission in the mountains of Afghanistan, it would make ALL the difference.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

If a woman was shooting a pisto at a criminal, you are right. If I were putting together a mission in the mountains of Afghanistan, it would make ALL the difference.

Why? Apparently it's just a bunch of boys that can't help but get turned on by eating with a female... I'd prefer women running the mission if you ask me. The boys might stumble upon enemy women eating and will be too turned on to fight.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

I guess you're right. Having a woman eating, sleeping, showering with thirty teenage boys day in and day out wouldn't cause any problems.

Women in the army routinely sleep and shower with 18-19 year old boys? Is this what's going on?

When I read posts like yours, the only real conclusion I can come to is that you seem to believe that men are all sexual deviants or worse, rapists, who simply cannot control themselves when they spend many hours a day with women. We should be fearing you at every step. Given that I work about 80-90 hours a week with almost exclusively men, you might expect that I have made my rounds and slept with most of them at some point or another. They can't control themselves and hey, I'm thinking, what the hell, I have nothing better to do with my time.

I'm not so much offended on behalf of women, but on behalf of men when I read some of your posts about this kind of stuff. And I'm being totally honest.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

Women in the army routinely sleep and shower with 18-19 year old boys? Is this what's going on?

When I read posts like yours, the only real conclusion I can come to is that you seem to believe that men are all sexual deviants or worse, rapists, who simply cannot control themselves when they spend many hours a day with women. We should be fearing you at every step. Given that I work about 80-90 hours a week with almost exclusively men, you might expect that I have made my rounds and slept with most of them at some point or another. They can't control themselves and hey, I'm thinking, what the hell, I have nothing better to do with my time.

I'm not so much offended on behalf of women, but on behalf of men when I read some of your posts about this kind of stuff. And I'm being totally honest.

Why do you think women are currently not allowed in the Combat Arms? Just because in this PC era we still want to keep the woman down? I can just see the men in the Pentagon, sitting around the table with cigars, "We need to be very careful about Muslim backlash after Ft. Hood - however, thank God we still don't let chicks in the Infantry!"

My point is - one would think that in this day of Political Correctness - women should have been allowed in the Infantry years ago. Why do you think this hasn't happened? What are the reasons they give for this policy?

[coolian2]

Originally Posted by anitram

Women in the army routinely sleep and shower with 18-19 year old boys? Is this what's going on?

When I read posts like yours, the only real conclusion I can come to is that you seem to believe that men are all sexual deviants or worse, rapists, who simply cannot control themselves when they spend many hours a day with women. We should be fearing you at every step. Given that I work about 80-90 hours a week with almost exclusively men, you might expect that I have made my rounds and slept with most of them at some point or another. They can't control themselves and hey, I'm thinking, what the hell, I have nothing better to do with my time.

I'm not so much offended on behalf of women, but on behalf of men when I read some of your posts about this kind of stuff. And I'm being totally honest.

i just spent a year in class at close quarters with a number of women i got to know very well. i can't believe i didn't rape any of them. i guess this means i'm not cut out for the military.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

My point is - one would think that in this day of Political Correctness - women should have been allowed in the Infantry years ago. Why do you think this hasn't happened? What are the reasons they give for this policy?

AEON, could you give me a definition of "Political Correctness"? i'm curious.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

AEON, could you give me a definition of "Political Correctness"? i'm curious.

wiki sums it up pretty well:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts

The question remains - with a government filled with leaders intent to "minimize social offense in gender" - why have these same leaders deemed it necessary to keep women from serving in Combat Arms positions?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

My point is - one would think that in this day of Political Correctness - women should have been allowed in the Infantry years ago. Why do you think this hasn't happened? What are the reasons they give for this policy?

I have no idea what their stated reasons for the policy are.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

I have no idea what their stated reasons for the policy are.

It might help you at least "understand" the other side of the argument, even if you don't agree. Believe it or not, there are plenty of highly educated, highly intelligent people out there that disagree with you. They are not all idiots because they have an opposite view. Your opinion on the issue is not universallly accepted in the manner that something like "Love Thy Neighbor" is.

I understand your position, you think it's unfair. I also agree it's unfair. Where we disagree, in part, is that I also think it's unfair that even though I wasn't born 6'11" with a great vertical that I wasn't drafted by the NBA. But I accept this. Why? Because that particular position is greater than my capabilities (I'm only 6'1" with a so/so vertical and terrible jumpshot). Forcing the NBA to draft me and then play me in games might be "fair" to me, but "unfair" to my teammates that would have to make up for my weak capabilities.

Not everyone is born to be an Infantry soldier. It's just that simple. Carrying a 100 lbs rucksack for 20-30 miles (with another 20 lbs weapon) is still part of the job. Carrying a wounded 200 lbs man for several hundred meters is still part of the job. When these sort of demands are not part of the job, perhaps things can change (regarding this portion of the debate. The social/morale problems would still exist).

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

It might help you at least "understand" the other side of the argument, even if you don't agree. Believe it or not, there are plenty of highly educated, highly intelligent people out there that disagree with you. They are not all idiots because they have an opposite view. Your opinion on the issue is not universallly accepted in the manner that something like "Love Thy Neighbor" is.

I honestly don't know what you're on about in your post.

I genuinely told you I didn't know what their stated policy was after you asked me what it was. Kind of confused by what followed on your part.

[BVS]

AEON

[HyperU2]

Limiting them to non combat arms roles are the only limitations they should have.

[BonosSaint]

Would you have any difficulty taking orders from a woman officer (or for that matter, a gay one?). How do you feel about women combat pilots?

[HyperU2]

I take orders from women all the time anyway. Pilots are fine but they are definitely subjected to worse tortures than their male counterparts when shot down and captured.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by HyperU2

Limiting them to non combat arms roles are the only limitations they should have.

I agree.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

I agree.

is this due to physical limitations, or that a female throws off a male/male dynamic?

also, would you say that this applies to the gays as well?