StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

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

That's a gem. How do you discipline them before hand to not get pregnant so they will get discharged? The problems discussed above ARE REAL. And the kind of 25-50% issues he's talking about would be worse in a frontline combat unit and totally unacceptable.

By subjecting them to disciplinary action if they break the ground rules?

The seperate Female units idea was proposed and shot down by Woodrow Wilson, Annie Oakley and Theodore Roosevelt had private armies that they wanted to field (One a female Infantry/Sniper unit, the other a Full blown Calv. Unit.). In retrospect I wish that Oakley's sniper's had been given a chance on their own.

Well, whatever guys.

Most of you are being really sexist, which is disappointing.

I'm leaving the board and I'm not coming back.

So whatever.

Goodbye.

Antediluvian wrote: I'm leaving the board and I'm not coming back.

So whatever.

Goodbye.

Eh? Why?

Antediluvian wrote:

kheegan wrote:

Antediluvian wrote: By saying that they DO know the consequences, it means that they already know how to use contraceptives, but for the reasons described above, they do not get used...


Stop hitting on to the strawman of this 'instinct'. All I said is that men have a tendency to be protective of women...whether it is a biological instinct or otherwise is irrelevant. Anyway there are so many cases in which a biological instinct is not followed...[/b]

Or just doesn't exist. You have supplied no evidence for this.

You are the one that said that it was an instinct, not me. There is no strawman.

I did not say that...someone before me did. I merely continued to use the word instinct in general terms of a normal behaviour. And you have not bothered to address the rest of my point, merely continued to hammer away on the 'instinct' part. If it isn't a strawman I don't what is.

Antediluvian wrote:As for your drunk idea, I agree that it would screw their judgement up, but why couldn't they take contraceptives after the fact, or simply abort it?

You wanna open up another big can of fish with morning-after pills and abortion? Anyway such things would not be readily available in a combat zone, or do you expect each female trooper to carry some pills and a coat-hanger in her kit?

Colonel Olrik wrote:

Antediluvian wrote: I'm leaving the board and I'm not coming back.

So whatever.

Goodbye.

Eh? Why?

Because he thinks that recognising the differences between males and females is sexist.

I think women should be allowed into the military but the standards for women should not be lowered which is just stupid.

weemadando wrote:Anyone who wishes to should be able to sign on for combat duty. However, regardless of sex, race or religion they must pass the STANDARD tests. No cutting slack for either sex, but simply a single set standard that ANYONE who wants combat should have to pass.

I agree with this. The main problem comes because most women cannot pass the male tests. The top 10% of female recruits have been found to have roughly the physical capability of the bottom 10% of male recruits. Any job requiring heavy strength is far less likely to be open for a female soldier. This includes support services, also. Armor techs must be able to replace tracks, gun breeches, and service artillery and tank units. Nearly a third of female aircraft technicians are unable to get the tire off the airplane without assistance.

I suggest Stephanie Gutmann's book "The Kinder, Gentler Military" for anyone interested in a good look at this topic from a female journalist's point of view. She covers everything from the strength issue (her book is where I got my information), to Tailhook (including how the female officers who committed improper sexual acts were never questioned), to the Hultgreen incident, when the first fully qualified female fleet carrier pilot crashed her F-14 Tomcat during a routine landing approach and was killed. In fact, Gutmann goes further than the official Pentagon investigation into why the crash occurred, and comes up with a rather different answer than the Pentagon's.

Antediluvian wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

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

That's a gem. How do you discipline them before hand to not get pregnant so they will get discharged? The problems discussed above ARE REAL. And the kind of 25-50% issues he's talking about would be worse in a frontline combat unit and totally unacceptable.

By subjecting them to disciplinary action if they break the ground rules?

How are you going to prove that they're trying to get pregnant to get discharged until they succeed and then obviously it doesn't fucking matter?

Point is, regardless of availability of contraceptives, you still have 25-50% pregnancy rates. Unacceptable on the frontline.

kheegan wrote:

Colonel Olrik wrote:

Antediluvian wrote: I'm leaving the board and I'm not coming back.

So whatever.

Goodbye.

Eh? Why?

Because he thinks that recognising the differences between males and females is sexist.

After reading all the pages it's because he is comparable to a fundie and instead of conceding a point he just decides to run away. No big lost.

kheegan wrote:

Colonel Olrik wrote:

Antediluvian wrote: I'm leaving the board and I'm not coming back.

So whatever.

Goodbye.

Eh? Why?

Because he thinks that recognising the differences between males and females is sexist.

Because pointing out that even though sexual relations are not approved, even though contraceptives ARE available you're still getting 25-50% pregnancy rates in support units and he can't see how this will fuck over forward combat units. He's a touchy-feely Californian-style let's analyze things in a lab point of view rather then look at the tried-and-true statistics of what's really going on. What a moron.

Personnally I think that women should be found a role in combat that they can excel in. Tactics, Aerial combat, logistics, or field work that requires less strain physically. Genetically, structurally, women are weaker. But they are probably better in other roles of combat than men are. Women are more capable in some fields definitely, but as GROPOS they would be less efficient as a good deal of the work that goes into that requires a greater physical ability.

Antediluvian wrote:If people are so bothered by the idea of mixed units, then why can't they just have separate units for males and females like someone else suggested on a previous page?

Would that satisfy the naysayers?

I've no gripe with that. In fact, that used to be the case. The Army had the WAC's. Unfortunately, it won't happen, so all we can do is keep combat arms all male...

Darth Pounder wrote: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.

psst -- Don't get your military knowledge from Hollywood-based movies. They push their agenda down the collective throat of the world and in no way reflect reality...

The Yosemite Bear wrote:

kheegan wrote:Another point in favour of "No". A female soldier who is captured is almost certain to be raped, whether there is a need to torture her or not.

Then we HANG the bastards!

there is a reason that rape is a warcrime under the Geneva accords.

A great many things done to captured US soldiers are in violation of those accords. Nobody pays attention to them -- certainly not the enemies of the US.

A great many things done to captured US soldiers are in violation of those accords. Nobody pays attention to them -- certainly not the enemies of the US

If women are allowed to volunteer for combat units then the possiblity of rape is just something they need to live with. Rape for women, torture for men, either way being a POW can be a horrendous, brutal, experience. Besides being in a support unit does not protect you from danger, considering the largest threat is guerilla's and terroists. Like Jegs says, most of our enemies dont pay attention to any conventions.

Because pointing out that even though sexual relations are not approved, even though contraceptives ARE available you're still getting 25-50% pregnancy rates in support units and he can't see how this will fuck over forward combat units. He's a touchy- feely Californian-style let's analyze things in a lab point of view rather then look at the tried-and-true statistics of what's really going on. What a moron.

Agreed, except for the California comment. California is a big, diverse state. Not everyone is a touchy-feely liberal here. In fact most are not. Its just that those that are, tend to be very vocal. ( /minor nitpick)

kheegan wrote:

neoolong wrote:

Alyeska wrote: Yet at the same time dropping certain standards across the board for certain fields is a GOOD idea. A woman with less upper body muscles can work in other fields, can fly a helicopter, drive a tank, or do other duties. That said, men with bad upper body strength can do the same thing.

There is a difference between preventing women from joining special forces and simply holding the standards HIGH but allowing capable women in special forces or infantry.

What happens if the helicopter or tank is disabled? And the female pilot has to carry someone to safety? If strength standards are dropped in that area specifically so weak men and women can serve in that capacity, is it still a good idea?

I think Alyeska means that women should be allowed to serve in armor etc WITHOUT lowering the standards. I might be wrong, but as it is the physical requirements for such roles are already lower than that for infantry or spec-forces.

Well, I used some bad examples, but what I am saying is that SOME fields in the military do not have the same standards as other fields. In such cases, the standards could be "dropped" across the board allowing both "lower" men and women into those fields while possibly sending the more physically capable into other fields.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

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

That's a gem. How do you discipline them before hand to not get pregnant so they will get discharged? The problems discussed above ARE REAL. And the kind of 25-50% issues he's talking about would be worse in a frontline combat unit and totally unacceptable.

Easy. Instant prison sentence for the women, that or some other form of punishment. Part of being in an important military formation is proper discipline. Lack of discipline that leads to the degredation of unit morale, cohesiveness, and manpower capability should be punished. Women who realize just what they have to deal with, will take the appropriate steps. Another method is to make birth control of various forms mandatory.

And before anyone brings up the "what if she was raped and became pregnant". The woman would state who raped her and the person would be DNA tested. If she didn't see the attacker, then the DNA would be compared to a database of the soldiers DNA and the father would be severly punished.

Alyeska wrote:Well, I used some bad examples, but what I am saying is that SOME fields in the military do not have the same standards as other fields. In such cases, the standards could be "dropped" across the board allowing both "lower" men and women into those fields while possibly sending the more physically capable into other fields.

That's already been done in many cases. Basic Training units require an APFT score of only 60 percent for passing recruits (70 percent is passing in line units), because too many recruits couldn't pass the APFT. Furthermore, the APFT standards were changed a few years ago to allow 18 to 26-year olds to have lower physical standards that 27 to 31-year-olds (Yes, I said lower than the older folks). If you compare APFT standards between men and women, you'll find that they are vastly different, requiring much more of men:
http://academic.udayton.edu/rotc/apft.htm

jegs2 wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Well, I used some bad examples, but what I am saying is that SOME fields in the military do not have the same standards as other fields. In such cases, the standards could be "dropped" across the board allowing both "lower" men and women into those fields while possibly sending the more physically capable into other fields.

That's already been done in many cases. Basic Training units require an APFT score of only 60 percent for passing recruits (70 percent is passing in line units), because too many recruits couldn't pass the APFT. Furthermore, the APFT standards were changed a few years ago to allow 18 to 26-year olds to have lower physical standards that 27 to 31-year-olds (Yes, I said lower than the older folks). If you compare APFT standards between men and women, you'll find that they are vastly different, requiring much more of men:
http://academic.udayton.edu/rotc/apft.htm

Ok, thats not exactly good.

jegs2 wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Well, I used some bad examples, but what I am saying is that SOME fields in the military do not have the same standards as other fields. In such cases, the standards could be "dropped" across the board allowing both "lower" men and women into those fields while possibly sending the more physically capable into other fields.

That's already been done in many cases. Basic Training units require an APFT score of only 60 percent for passing recruits (70 percent is passing in line units), because too many recruits couldn't pass the APFT. Furthermore, the APFT standards were changed a few years ago to allow 18 to 26-year olds to have lower physical standards that 27 to 31-year-olds (Yes, I said lower than the older folks). If you compare APFT standards between men and women, you'll find that they are vastly different, requiring much more of men:
http://academic.udayton.edu/rotc/apft.htm

I remember reading an article that the Army was frustrated by the lack of physical quality in the recruits they were getting. Overweight, poor strength, etc. I think it reflects the poor job our society does when it comes to keeping in shape. My high school did not require any PE after your 2nd year. Kids stay in and play game all day, etc.

jegs2 wrote:If you compare APFT standards between men and women, you'll find that they are vastly different, requiring much more of men:
http://academic.udayton.edu/rotc/apft.htm

Shit dude! The Air Force PFT is harder than that!

Antediluvian wrote:Well, whatever guys.

Most of you are being really sexist, which is disappointing.

I'm leaving the board and I'm not coming back.

So whatever.

Goodbye.

Well, that's one way to avoid admitting error

I see no reason not to let them serve, if they are quallified.

Vympel wrote:Should women be allowed in the combat arms of the military? Yes or no, and as always, why or why not?

Yes. Women can shoot as well as men. They also can perform close-combat martial arts as well as men. They also have roughly similar endurance, and absorb bullet/arrow/laser/blaster fire as well as men. Hell yes they should serve!