StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If women can meet the requirements, let them in.

They should be able to serve in any branch of the military they please.

closet sci-fi fan wrote:most women that can do that are women only because of the genitals they have.

What do you mean by this statement?

closet sci-fi fan wrote:that means that they were masculine, bulky.

So basically you're saying they're men with breasts?

Antediluvian wrote:

closet sci-fi fan wrote:that means that they were masculine, bulky.

So basically you're saying they're men with breasts?

No, men with vaginas.

Stormbringer wrote:

Antediluvian wrote:

closet sci-fi fan wrote:that means that they were masculine, bulky.

So basically you're saying they're men with breasts?

No, men with vaginas.

So in other words, women with muscles aren't really women, they're really men.

My respect for you and closet sci-fi fan just went down sharply.

Alyeska wrote:

innerbrat wrote:OK, I don't think women should be in the infantry for pretty much the same reason Ming gave us - it's not so much that some women couldn't fight, it's that the presence of a woman would affect the effectiveness of the men in the troop - by spending too much effort protecting her. How many of you guys irrationally defend your fave females - friends, girlfriends, sisters etc? Now imagine one of your female frineds is about to be killed...

They used the exact same argument against allowing Blacks to serve in the military, or to serve in certain combat units. It would Hurt morale so we shouldn't do it. The military will adapt as it always does. Right NOW women might cause problems, but that problem would solve itself because people would be forced to adress the issue and fix the problems.

Black men don't get pregnant. Black men don't require different hygiene standards than white and black, yellow, purple, pink, gold or whatever women. Black men are not physically structured differently from white, yellow, purple, pink, gold or whatever men, but they are physically different in many ways from women of all colors, persuasions, beliefs, whatever... I don't have to fill out reports or reflect USR numbers or make special arrangements for pregnant black men.

Fifty percent of the women in my battalion became pregnant while in Korea (and not by their husbands -- most were single). That was reported on USR statistics, and the unit had to ship those women back to the States prior to their DEROS. That cost the Army in money, unit readiness, and morale (nobody likes to see a soldier leave Korea before his or her time has been served). You can order men and women soldiers not to have sex or to at least use contraceptives, but they generally don't remember what you told them when they get all hot and bothered around each other. Mine was a CS unit, so now imagine the absolute nightmare that would entail in a forward combat unit...

If women want to serve in combat, then make them eligible for the draft. Until then, I say no.

Antediluvian wrote:So in other words, women with muscles aren't really women, they're really men.

My respect for you and closet sci-fi fan just went down sharply.

I didn't say that. I meant he was talking about the woman that have built their bodies up to a degree that they are very mannish. Have you seen some of the lady body builders and such? Not femine at all.

jegs2 wrote:

Alyeska wrote:

innerbrat wrote:OK, I don't think women should be in the infantry for pretty much the same reason Ming gave us - it's not so much that some women couldn't fight, it's that the presence of a woman would affect the effectiveness of the men in the troop - by spending too much effort protecting her. How many of you guys irrationally defend your fave females - friends, girlfriends, sisters etc? Now imagine one of your female frineds is about to be killed...

They used the exact same argument against allowing Blacks to serve in the military, or to serve in certain combat units. It would Hurt morale so we shouldn't do it. The military will adapt as it always does. Right NOW women might cause problems, but that problem would solve itself because people would be forced to adress the issue and fix the problems.

Black men don't get pregnant. Black men don't require different hygiene standards than white and black, yellow, purple, pink, gold or whatever women. Black men are not physically structured differently from white, yellow, purple, pink, gold or whatever men, but they are physically different in many ways from women of all colors, persuasions, beliefs, whatever... I don't have to fill out reports or reflect USR numbers or make special arrangements for pregnant black men.

Fifty percent of the women in my battalion became pregnant while in Korea (and not by their husbands -- most were single). That was reported on USR statistics, and the unit had to ship those women back to the States prior to their DEROS. That cost the Army in money, unit readiness, and morale (nobody likes to see a soldier leave Korea before his or her time has been served). You can order men and women soldiers not to have sex or to at least use contraceptives, but they generally don't remember what you told them when they get all hot and bothered around each other. Mine was a CS unit, so now imagine the absolute nightmare that would entail in a forward combat unit...

So basically women shouldn't serve in combat just because they can get pregnant?

What, you think women can't avoid getting pregnant?

This sounds like the argument that women can't serve on submarines because they require different toilets.

They're both ridiculous arguments.

Woman should be allowed into combat roles such as air force pilots (already are) ship crew/officers (already are) etc.

But I do NOT want to see them in frontline infantry.

There's just something about the idea of pretty girls running into a SPR-esqe opposed landing hell and getting their guts pasted out around them that doesn't sit well with me. Call me a sexist, but there it is.

I personally don't care, but I don't think women would be as effective as men in positions such as infantry. This isn't because of any sexist leanings on my part, but it's a simple fact of nature that human females are not "designed" to be strong warrior types.

Stormbringer wrote:

Antediluvian wrote:So in other words, women with muscles aren't really women, they're really men.

My respect for you and closet sci-fi fan just went down sharply.

I didn't say that. I meant he was talking about the woman that have built their bodies up to a degree that they are very mannish. Have you seen some of the lady body builders and such? Not femine at all.

Yes, I have. I think they're very feminine. Just not traditionally feminine.

And you said men with vaginas. Now, you're saying they're mannish.

What am I supposed to think?

So basically women shouldn't serve in combat just because they can get pregnant?

What, you think women can't avoid getting pregnant?

This sounds like the argument that women can't serve on submarines because they require different toilets.

They're both ridiculous arguments

Did you see what he said about his unit in Korea? Getting pregnant is a serious problem in keeping units up to strength. This is not a civilian job where they can hire a temp while you are gone.

Antediluvian wrote: So basically women shouldn't serve in combat just because they can get pregnant?

Have you served in a combat unit? If you haven't, then your question is moot, for you are incapable of understanding. We in the Army have someting called "Esprit de Corps," upon which we base our morale. If the situation I described took place in an Infantry unit, where morale is paramount to unit readiness and success in battle, that situation could destroy the entire unit. I've seen it happen in CS units.

What, you think women can't avoid getting pregnant?

Did you not read what I wrote? THEY CHOSE NOT TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS DESPITE THEIR AVAILABILITY -- understand now? Most soldiers who get pregnant are kids between the ages of 18 and 21, and they are removed far from home, so when they're placed in an environment with women their age, they will fuck each other -- it's a given, and they generally will throw caution to the wind.

This sounds like the argument that women can't serve on submarines because they require different toilets.

That has zilch to do with what I said. Think before you type.

They're both ridiculous arguments.

Again, have you served in a combat unit?

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

So basically women shouldn't serve in combat just because they can get pregnant?

What, you think women can't avoid getting pregnant?

This sounds like the argument that women can't serve on submarines because they require different toilets.

They're both ridiculous arguments

Did you see what he said about his unit in Korea? Getting pregnant is a serious problem in keeping units up to strength. This is not a civilian job where they can hire a temp while you are gone.

Yes, I read what he said, but that's not going to happen in every single unit.

In a similair vein, here in NYC women clammored forever to join the Fire Dept., well when they were required to do the physical exam they failed miserably. I think 2% of female applicants passed or something abyssmal like that. The one test that the women consistently failed was dragging a 200 pound dummy across a room. They simply could not do it. And for that matter quite a few men could not complete the test either.

So what did they do? Acknowldge that this was a weakness and that they could not serve in the FDNY for the sake of the public good?

NO.

They pressed for a SEPERATE test for the women. Among the changes was the dummy was now 160 pounds. You know something? I'm 250 pounds, so when a female fire fighter comes bursting into my apt and I'm unconcious on the floor...I'm crispy.

There's NO EXCUSE for there being a seperate test for women.

So if the women cannot pass the physical standards too bad.

On the other hand I also agree with Jegs because I have friends in the military and they all agree to the man that a woman in a combat role would be a bad idea. All save the Navy pilot friend of mine who said that he would not care if a woman was a combat pilot, and neither would I, the skills involved in being a pilot are quite different than those of being a grunt.

Interestingly enough, there was a documentary on women who were going through basic training and it showed consistently that the women were not able to accomplish what the men were able to do (physically). One example was lugging an ammo crate along a rope. The men just bulled it across, the women did it in teams, two carrying one ammo box at a time.

The reporter went out of her way to say that this showed that women could serve just as well as men because they found creative solutions to problems that men simply solved through brute force...bullshit honey, the women just crippled the unit because the job that I could assign one male soldier to do would need two female soldiers...what's the point in that???

jegs2 wrote:

Antediluvian wrote: So basically women shouldn't serve in combat just because they can get pregnant?

Have you served in a combat unit? If you haven't, then your question is moot, for you are incapable of understanding. We in the Army have someting called "Esprit de Corps," upon which we base our morale. If the situation I described took place in an Infantry unit, where morale is paramount to unit readiness and success in battle, that situation could destroy the entire unit. I've seen it happen in CS units.

What, you think women can't avoid getting pregnant?

Did you not read what I wrote? THEY CHOSE NOT TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS DESPITE THEIR AVAILABILITY -- understand now? Most soldiers who get pregnant are kids between the ages of 18 and 21, and they are removed far from home, so when they're placed in an environment with women their age, they will fuck each other -- it's a given, and they generally will throw caution to the wind.

This sounds like the argument that women can't serve on submarines because they require different toilets.

That has zilch to do with what I said. Think before you type.

They're both ridiculous arguments.

Again, have you served in a combat unit?

No, I haven't served in a combat unit, but just because it happened in your unit, doesn't mean it will happen in every unit, or happen at all.

There is this little thing known as discipline.

And yes, I read what you wrote. You didn't answer my question. The women and men in your unit may not have chose to use them, but that doesn't mean everyone will be that irresponsible.

As for the submarine argument, I brought it up to show how silly your objections are. Your argument is just as weak as that.

Antediluvian wrote:
No, I haven't served in a combat unit, but just because it happened in your unit, doesn't mean it will happen in every unit, or happen at all.

There is this little thing known as discipline.

And yes, I read what you wrote. You didn't answer my question. The women and men in your unit may not have chose to use them, but that doesn't mean everyone will be that irresponsible.

As for the submarine argument, I brought it up to show how silly your objections are. Your argument is just as weak as that.

In overseas-deployed units (Korea, Kuwait, Germany, Afgansistan, Fill-in-the-Blank-istan), all USR statistics reflect high rates of pregancy in CS and CSS units (between 25 and 50 percent pregnancy rates). Many of the female soldiers, when questioned why they became pregant (i.e. having sex without contraceptives) replied that they did so either to get out of the deployment or get out of the military. It is a systemic problem, and you can discipline a soldier after she becomes pregant, but then she's getting out of the unit, so what difference does it make?

Again, we do not need those issues in a frontline Infantry company or battalion.

jegs2 wrote:

Antediluvian wrote:
No, I haven't served in a combat unit, but just because it happened in your unit, doesn't mean it will happen in every unit, or happen at all.

There is this little thing known as discipline.

And yes, I read what you wrote. You didn't answer my question. The women and men in your unit may not have chose to use them, but that doesn't mean everyone will be that irresponsible.

As for the submarine argument, I brought it up to show how silly your objections are. Your argument is just as weak as that.

In overseas-deployed units (Korea, Kuwait, Germany, Afgansistan, Fill-in-the-Blank-istan), all USR statistics reflect high rates of pregancy in CS and CSS units (between 25 and 50 percent pregnancy rates). Many of the female soldiers, when questioned why they became pregant (i.e. having sex without contraceptives) replied that they did so either to get out of the deployment or get out of the military. It is a systemic problem, and you can discipline a soldier after she becomes pregant, but then she's getting out of the unit, so what difference does it make?

Again, we do not need those issues in a frontline Infantry company or battalion.

And so you think that can't ever change?

Surely, not every woman is going to get pregnant to get out of the military any more than every man will make an excuse to leave the military or go AWOL.

You see what I'm saying?

No, I haven't served in a combat unit, but just because it happened in your unit, doesn't mean it will happen in every unit, or happen at all.

There is this little thing known as discipline.

Since it happened in his unit, and I know its happened in units of other services my friends were in. Then its safe to assume its a problem. This is not a phony issue.

Discipline?? You can discharge them for being pregnant, send them home, or demote them. But you still have the problem units loosing manpower.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

No, I haven't served in a combat unit, but just because it happened in your unit, doesn't mean it will happen in every unit, or happen at all.

There is this little thing known as discipline.

Since it happened in his unit, and I know its happened in units of other services my friends were in. Then its safe to assume its a problem. This is not a phony issue.

Discipline?? You can discharge them for being pregnant, send them home, or demote them. But you still have the problem units loosing manpower.

Can't you just discipline them beforehand? Like setting down ground rules?

Can't you just discipline them beforehand? Like setting down ground rules?

Not if they intend to get out by getting pregnant. The only way I could see that working is too make is mandatory that women in overseas posts get a depro-privera (spelling?) shot. Which is a whole can of worms.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

Can't you just discipline them beforehand? Like setting down ground rules?

Not if they intend to get out by getting pregnant. The only way I could see that working is too make is mandatory that women in overseas posts get a depro-privera (spelling?) shot. Which is a whole can of worms.

What exactly does this shot do?

Antediluvian wrote:

jegs2 wrote:

Antediluvian wrote: So basically women shouldn't serve in combat just because they can get pregnant?

Have you served in a combat unit? If you haven't, then your question is moot, for you are incapable of understanding. We in the Army have someting called "Esprit de Corps," upon which we base our morale. If the situation I described took place in an Infantry unit, where morale is paramount to unit readiness and success in battle, that situation could destroy the entire unit. I've seen it happen in CS units.

What, you think women can't avoid getting pregnant?

Did you not read what I wrote? THEY CHOSE NOT TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS DESPITE THEIR AVAILABILITY -- understand now? Most soldiers who get pregnant are kids between the ages of 18 and 21, and they are removed far from home, so when they're placed in an environment with women their age, they will fuck each other -- it's a given, and they generally will throw caution to the wind.

This sounds like the argument that women can't serve on submarines because they require different toilets.

That has zilch to do with what I said. Think before you type.

They're both ridiculous arguments.

Again, have you served in a combat unit?

No, I haven't served in a combat unit, but just because it happened in your unit, doesn't mean it will happen in every unit, or happen at all.

There is this little thing known as discipline.

And yes, I read what you wrote. You didn't answer my question. The women and men in your unit may not have chose to use them, but that doesn't mean everyone will be that irresponsible.

As for the submarine argument, I brought it up to show how silly your objections are. Your argument is just as weak as that.

Ok, how about mine. I served in a combat unit and then in a support unit so I've seen the two sides. First in the support roles women can and do serve brilliantly. However anytime you get men and women together you are going to have sexual relations no matter what the commanders want.
I have been aboard ships where the majority of the handful of women who serve on board end up preagnant durring their tour. I know that almost half of the Women Marines who lived in the barracks when I was in the FSSG, got pregnent (small hint, if they are in the barracks, they are not married ). Can a woman serve in the military? Yes, but again when men and women are put in close proximity of each other, sex will happen. When the woman is pregnent, she can not perform her duties for what? The last 6 or so months? Not the mention the first couple of months after the birth of the child.

Now, translate that to the infantry. Its a no go. If men and women are in close proximity in the military, then once you translate that over to the infantry, the closeness and the bonds between people get even closer. Ontop of all that, you have to keep the units war fighting capability in mind. If you costantly have personel moving in and out of the unit for personal reasons (refer to jegs2's experience in Korea). Then add on top of that the pycological effects of women in the infantry. In a firefight do you want your troops protecting the females? Cause thats what your going to get. Is it the womans fault? Or maybe the men because it is hardwired into us to defend females in dangerous situations. Can this be blamed on women? Yes and no. Its the way humans are and its the way we think.

Physicaly women, atleast some of them, are capable of being in the infantry. Socialy, mentally, culturally, and realisticly it is a bad idea to have women involved in the ferrocity and horrors of close quarters ground combat. It is both the mens fault and womens fault at the same time. Plus you can add in the mix things such as, when I was in the infantry, we shared one big common bathroom and shower. That won't happen if women are introduced to the infantry. So, are they special and get their own? You'll have 20 men sharing 4 toilets but women get a one on one toliet situation? I've been in barracks were 6 men were assigned to a room. Are you going to cram 6 women in a room? There are a host of social problems we must address before women should be able to be in the infantry and political correctness is not one of them.

A lot of these agruements remind me of G.I. Jane. And i will repeat one of the counter-arguements from the movie

"During world war 2 my grand daddy wanted to be in the navy, fire them big ass guns but the navy told him 'no, if a black guy wants to be in the navy he can cook or clean' so you are trying ti start this whole crusade but to them you'll just be another N***** on the block"

If a woman wants to fight for her country and has the physical ability to do what she choses then who the hell are we to deny her. She has more balls than a lotta ppl voting no who aren't in the army themselves.