Forums > Social Discussion > Women (and Men) I need your opinion
Login/Join to ParticipateEnter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
I really wish I would have written this as soon as I had seen the news story, so please bare with me when I am vauge about names and what not.
Today on the news I saw a woman who was either the president or a representitive of a group delt with women in the military. Now she was brought on the show to talk about Jessica Linch's home comming.
She went on and on about how the military has thrown out the rule that basically said that the military would do its best to prevent putting women in an area that could see combat.
Now, for those who dont know me, I am a United States Marine. I have never seen combat, sometimes I regret this and sometimes I am thankfull for this, but I do know that females train the same as males. Some things are different, of course. Actually in bootcamp the females train 1 hour a day longer then the males. They also train completly seperate from the males, the Marines is the only branch to do this. Now this is just for bootcamp, in MCT (Marine Combat Training) they train somewhat together.
Both male and female recruits are tought to shoot the same, they have similer physical training regiments, and they have the same standerds as far as close order drill, knowlege, first aid and what not.
Now, if they are trained the same, why is it such a big deal for the females to be kept away from combat?
I know females that shoot better than me, I also know some that would be a holy terror in a combat situation.
If women are equal, they why is this woman trying to get combat segrigated?
Another thing, you can put someone on the back line but they are still in danger.
Both in the Gulf War and Operation Free Iraq, supply depots have come under enimy fire. Both times the Soldiers or Marines fought back and were victorius. Both women and men were in those depots. Nobody cared about that.
PFC Linch was part of a maintenace (platoon, I dont know what the Army calls itself). I do believe that she was a Motor T mechanic.
This woman was saying that since there were women in that unit that they should not have been allowed anywhere near the front line.
I ask you, are women equal?
If so, is this woman helping or hindering any cause to create an equal world.
My personal belief, if you want to fight for your country you should be allowed. If you meet the physical and mental requierments.
If your a male, female, strait, gay, who cares?
If you are willing to serve you should be allowed, but if you think that you can get a safe job dont bother showing up.
Sorry, people dont join the military to be safe, they join to be in harms way so that everyone else will be safe.
I feel sad and angry that someone who has no military experience would try to tell the country how the military should be run.
I really wish I would have written this as soon as I had seen the news story, so please bare with me when I am vauge about names and what not.
Today on the news I saw a woman who was either the president or a representitive of a group delt with women in the military. Now she was brought on the show to talk about Jessica Linch's home comming.
She went on and on about how the military has thrown out the rule that basically said that the military would do its best to prevent putting women in an area that could see combat.
Now, for those who dont know me, I am a United States Marine. I have never seen combat, sometimes I regret this and sometimes I am thankfull for this, but I do know that females train the same as males. Some things are different, of course. Actually in bootcamp the females train 1 hour a day longer then the males. They also train completly seperate from the males, the Marines is the only branch to do this. Now this is just for bootcamp, in MCT (Marine Combat Training) they train somewhat together.
Both male and female recruits are tought to shoot the same, they have similer physical training regiments, and they have the same standerds as far as close order drill, knowlege, first aid and what not.
Now, if they are trained the same, why is it such a big deal for the females to be kept away from combat?
I know females that shoot better than me, I also know some that would be a holy terror in a combat situation.
If women are equal, they why is this woman trying to get combat segrigated?
Another thing, you can put someone on the back line but they are still in danger.
Both in the Gulf War and Operation Free Iraq, supply depots have come under enimy fire. Both times the Soldiers or Marines fought back and were victorius. Both women and men were in those depots. Nobody cared about that.
PFC Linch was part of a maintenace (platoon, I dont know what the Army calls itself). I do believe that she was a Motor T mechanic.
This woman was saying that since there were women in that unit that they should not have been allowed anywhere near the front line.
I ask you, are women equal?
If so, is this woman helping or hindering any cause to create an equal world.
My personal belief, if you want to fight for your country you should be allowed. If you meet the physical and mental requierments.
If your a male, female, strait, gay, who cares?
If you are willing to serve you should be allowed, but if you think that you can get a safe job dont bother showing up.
Sorry, people dont join the military to be safe, they join to be in harms way so that everyone else will be safe.
I feel sad and angry that someone who has no military experience would try to tell the country how the military should be run.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
member
44 posts
Location: Minnesota, USA | Currently In: Japan
44 posts
Location: Minnesota, USA | Currently In: Japan
Posted:
:Nods Head in silent, thoughtful agreement::
:Nods Head in silent, thoughtful agreement::
-Eric
A wise monkey never monkeys around with another monkey's monkey...
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
I think the woman is wack.
If you want a lot of proof that women are combat effective look at the russian front in ww2. Lots of russian women fought very well agaisnt the nazi invasion.
Aslong as they have to do the same training and pass the same tests as men then they should be considered equal. As far as I know both the military and the fire departments in both canada and united states do require the same training and tests for women end men.
I think the woman is wack.
If you want a lot of proof that women are combat effective look at the russian front in ww2. Lots of russian women fought very well agaisnt the nazi invasion.
Aslong as they have to do the same training and pass the same tests as men then they should be considered equal. As far as I know both the military and the fire departments in both canada and united states do require the same training and tests for women end men.
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
What modern feminist movements don't seem to understand is that their strength lies in unity and not in fragmented groups each out for their own eneds. When it was all about equal rights, they were awesome and out for a very noble cause. In this era, they seem to have lost that message and are continually bickering, even amongst themselves, over what agenda they should further.
I applaud the women who want equality, both in benefits and in responsibilities.
I am disgusted by the radicals who want equal benefits without equal responsibilities ("have your cake and eat it too," as the saying goes).
As far as women in the military being put in equal danger, I say they are equally capable and equally competent. The only difference I can think of, and that has been frequently cited, is the fact that if women are captured in combat, their captors can inflict a greater variety of humiliations on them than they could men (assuming that other military forces in the world are less gender-integrated than ours).
Personally, I think the setup from "Starship Troopers" was the best military integration ever conceived
What modern feminist movements don't seem to understand is that their strength lies in unity and not in fragmented groups each out for their own eneds. When it was all about equal rights, they were awesome and out for a very noble cause. In this era, they seem to have lost that message and are continually bickering, even amongst themselves, over what agenda they should further.
I applaud the women who want equality, both in benefits and in responsibilities.
I am disgusted by the radicals who want equal benefits without equal responsibilities ("have your cake and eat it too," as the saying goes).
As far as women in the military being put in equal danger, I say they are equally capable and equally competent. The only difference I can think of, and that has been frequently cited, is the fact that if women are captured in combat, their captors can inflict a greater variety of humiliations on them than they could men (assuming that other military forces in the world are less gender-integrated than ours).
Personally, I think the setup from "Starship Troopers" was the best military integration ever conceived
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
I think women in combat roles can be just as good as men. So why don't I join up? Because I am not fit enough, am hideously uncoordinated and not excited particularly by physical exercise, and don't really have the right mentality (I question too much, ie when someone says "do that" I say "why me?" ).
There are a lot of perceptions of women in the community that affect this (the same ones that affect women's competitive boxing in NSW where it is illegal).
They include:
Women are mothers, and hold a sacred special place in the community, they should not be harmed (the pedastal approach)Women are more naturally peaceful than men are not able to take on combat roles as suchWomen are less rational than men, and could not be cool headed in a combat situationWomen would be too concerned about their appearance to do the dirty work associated with the roleWomen would be a distraction to men in a combat situation, either sexually, or because the men would make rash decisions in order to rescue them if they were in troubleWomen are not physically capable of the role (cannot carry the weapons, or the pack loads etc) and therefore would hold things up
All of these arguments are pretty insulting to women either in combat roles, or in other roles in life. If you take these arguments to their logical conclusion, then women must be a pretty sorry bunch.
Dio had a point about women being subjected to more humiliations if captured. However there is some weird stuff that goes on here, I read a quote by one female soldier who was raped after being captured by the enemy. She said something like "when you are being hung by your thumbs, rape loses its power". The humiliation that goes with rape is just as much about the way our society responds to it. I for one sometimes think that it would be better to be killed outright than be raped, and that isn't exactly logical is it?
Just as a thought, less commonly males who are captured are subjected to sexual assaults. I could imagine that with the stigma associated with male rape (the "how could you let that happen to you?") it would be far more humiliating.
[ 16. April 2003, 19:15: Message edited by: Rozi ]
I think women in combat roles can be just as good as men. So why don't I join up? Because I am not fit enough, am hideously uncoordinated and not excited particularly by physical exercise, and don't really have the right mentality (I question too much, ie when someone says "do that" I say "why me?" ).
There are a lot of perceptions of women in the community that affect this (the same ones that affect women's competitive boxing in NSW where it is illegal).
They include:
Women are mothers, and hold a sacred special place in the community, they should not be harmed (the pedastal approach)Women are more naturally peaceful than men are not able to take on combat roles as suchWomen are less rational than men, and could not be cool headed in a combat situationWomen would be too concerned about their appearance to do the dirty work associated with the roleWomen would be a distraction to men in a combat situation, either sexually, or because the men would make rash decisions in order to rescue them if they were in troubleWomen are not physically capable of the role (cannot carry the weapons, or the pack loads etc) and therefore would hold things up
All of these arguments are pretty insulting to women either in combat roles, or in other roles in life. If you take these arguments to their logical conclusion, then women must be a pretty sorry bunch.
Dio had a point about women being subjected to more humiliations if captured. However there is some weird stuff that goes on here, I read a quote by one female soldier who was raped after being captured by the enemy. She said something like "when you are being hung by your thumbs, rape loses its power". The humiliation that goes with rape is just as much about the way our society responds to it. I for one sometimes think that it would be better to be killed outright than be raped, and that isn't exactly logical is it?
Just as a thought, less commonly males who are captured are subjected to sexual assaults. I could imagine that with the stigma associated with male rape (the "how could you let that happen to you?") it would be far more humiliating.
[ 16. April 2003, 19:15: Message edited by: Rozi ]
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
BRONZE Member
Mistress of Pink...Multicoloured
6,140 posts
Location: Over There, United Kingdom
Mistress of Pink...Multicoloured
6,140 posts
Location: Over There, United Kingdom
Posted:
I agree,
Females should have the same right to be in the front line as men.
Alice
I agree,
Females should have the same right to be in the front line as men.
Alice
Never pick up a duck in a dungeon...
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
In history class we had a really great discussion about this. My history teacher who is probably the smartest person I know and who I respect a lot said whenever he see's a woman in the military, especially in a very high position (He used thumper as an example, the female pilot who was fighting in iraq) he said it disturbs him quite a bit. He doesn't object to women in combat roles and he said himself women actually have natural body diffrences that make them better pilots (better multi-tasking skills, higher pain tolerance to g-forces) He said it was just conditioning from growing up in the conservative world he did (he's in his 50's)
He asked us if we were on a sinking ship if we would let the women and children get onto the lifeboats first. Including women who are not mothers. Even the most liberal guys who consider themselves completly non-sexist said they would let the women go first.
I am wondering if maybe there is an instinct in us to protect women. They are considerably more valuable to the continuation of the species then men.
In history class we had a really great discussion about this. My history teacher who is probably the smartest person I know and who I respect a lot said whenever he see's a woman in the military, especially in a very high position (He used thumper as an example, the female pilot who was fighting in iraq) he said it disturbs him quite a bit. He doesn't object to women in combat roles and he said himself women actually have natural body diffrences that make them better pilots (better multi-tasking skills, higher pain tolerance to g-forces) He said it was just conditioning from growing up in the conservative world he did (he's in his 50's)
He asked us if we were on a sinking ship if we would let the women and children get onto the lifeboats first. Including women who are not mothers. Even the most liberal guys who consider themselves completly non-sexist said they would let the women go first.
I am wondering if maybe there is an instinct in us to protect women. They are considerably more valuable to the continuation of the species then men.
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
Or are you saying that it's their duty to take care of the youngins? (j/k)
quote:Only 50% dude... cloning don't work yet and probably never will
They are considerably more valuable to the continuation of the species then men.
Or are you saying that it's their duty to take care of the youngins? (j/k)
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Society has made sterotypes that make us feel that women are made of lace, and will crumble at the slightest touch.
Some say they have a higher pain tolerance, if this is so, why does society try to protect them so much? Shouldnt men be the protected ones?
When I see a female officer, I see an officer. What difference does it make what sex they are?
You follow your orders as needed. You do your job, no matter who your OIC is. Thats just the way it is.
I would bet that most of the people who are against women in combat situation (planned or unplanned) have never served their country in anything other than a poll box!
I have seen women do some pretty crazy things.
Ever hear of an intake diver?
Well, an intake diver is a person who climbs in the intake of a jet, this is while the engine is on and spinning. What they really do is beyond me but usually it is either a woman or a really small guy.
That takes some guts!
Sorry to say but I dont care if the turbine is spining below 80% I aint goin in that thing hehehehe
Nobody knows what they are capable of untill they are put in a situation. So why not let women on the front lines?
Society has made sterotypes that make us feel that women are made of lace, and will crumble at the slightest touch.
Some say they have a higher pain tolerance, if this is so, why does society try to protect them so much? Shouldnt men be the protected ones?
When I see a female officer, I see an officer. What difference does it make what sex they are?
You follow your orders as needed. You do your job, no matter who your OIC is. Thats just the way it is.
I would bet that most of the people who are against women in combat situation (planned or unplanned) have never served their country in anything other than a poll box!
I have seen women do some pretty crazy things.
Ever hear of an intake diver?
Well, an intake diver is a person who climbs in the intake of a jet, this is while the engine is on and spinning. What they really do is beyond me but usually it is either a woman or a really small guy.
That takes some guts!
Sorry to say but I dont care if the turbine is spining below 80% I aint goin in that thing hehehehe
Nobody knows what they are capable of untill they are put in a situation. So why not let women on the front lines?
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
uh no it's not 50%. One man can fertilize several women. So if you have a population of 8000 people a little more then 50% of them will be women. If like 3000 of the men die, the rest can still impregnate the other women. Also In prehistoric times when we evolved into what we are and our instincts were formed it was a fair bit harder for a man ro raise a baby because we didn't have breast pumps, milk from animals or baby milk formula.
uh no it's not 50%. One man can fertilize several women. So if you have a population of 8000 people a little more then 50% of them will be women. If like 3000 of the men die, the rest can still impregnate the other women. Also In prehistoric times when we evolved into what we are and our instincts were formed it was a fair bit harder for a man ro raise a baby because we didn't have breast pumps, milk from animals or baby milk formula.
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
I believe the Israeli's tried women in combat. The women of course were very capable. But there was an adverse psychological effect on the male soldiers. They couldn't bear to see a female killed in combat.
I served my country and still don't think women should have to face combat. I think they are too smart for that.
Patrick
I believe the Israeli's tried women in combat. The women of course were very capable. But there was an adverse psychological effect on the male soldiers. They couldn't bear to see a female killed in combat.
I served my country and still don't think women should have to face combat. I think they are too smart for that.
Patrick
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Who says chivalry is dead, eh? Actually that is the strongest argument for women not being put into harms way. If a woman was in danger, and I don't care what it is, war, assult on the street, whatever, I'm going to run over and help. It's biological and psychological: my biology tells me she is female and it triggers a natural protective response in me, which of course is furthered by my chivalrous nature. Same goes for combat. If it came down to it, I would protect a female whether I knew her or not just out of this chivalrous nature, while I may not be so quick to do so for a male, whether I think him capable of defending himself or not.
And as for Russian women in WWII... Come on man, they're Russian! Have you ever seen some of the girls they send to the olympics? I mean a good percentage of those ladies could kick a lot of people's butts up and down the block. Certainly "capable".
Who says chivalry is dead, eh? Actually that is the strongest argument for women not being put into harms way. If a woman was in danger, and I don't care what it is, war, assult on the street, whatever, I'm going to run over and help. It's biological and psychological: my biology tells me she is female and it triggers a natural protective response in me, which of course is furthered by my chivalrous nature. Same goes for combat. If it came down to it, I would protect a female whether I knew her or not just out of this chivalrous nature, while I may not be so quick to do so for a male, whether I think him capable of defending himself or not.
And as for Russian women in WWII... Come on man, they're Russian! Have you ever seen some of the girls they send to the olympics? I mean a good percentage of those ladies could kick a lot of people's butts up and down the block. Certainly "capable".
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
Beefy, your argument has no biological basis whatsoever. Men have been socially groomed to behave in accordance with your "chivalry" concept these days, and no "biological response" serves as the basis for this socialization, it's simply in the upbringing.
Spartan Soldiers
This article sheds some light on your "chivalry" and how it is really a social construct today that men are taught to be protective of women.
Your argument sounds less like an informed discussion and more like an attempt to make yourself look good for the ladies.
Though it is noble to treat women with respect and dignity - and I fully agree with you there - in the context of whether they're equally eligible to perform the same military duties as men that issue isn't what is being discussed here.
Beefy, your argument has no biological basis whatsoever. Men have been socially groomed to behave in accordance with your "chivalry" concept these days, and no "biological response" serves as the basis for this socialization, it's simply in the upbringing.
Spartan Soldiers
This article sheds some light on your "chivalry" and how it is really a social construct today that men are taught to be protective of women.
Your argument sounds less like an informed discussion and more like an attempt to make yourself look good for the ladies.
Though it is noble to treat women with respect and dignity - and I fully agree with you there - in the context of whether they're equally eligible to perform the same military duties as men that issue isn't what is being discussed here.
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
He is saying the same thing as I am only I am guessing at it as where he passes it off as fact. Really there is no understanding of our genetically ingrained insintcts. We do know that society can cause people to do things counter to our instincts, Suicide is the best example.
I think it's reasonable to believe instincts to protect women is a a plausible theory. But it's nothing more then a theory.
He is saying the same thing as I am only I am guessing at it as where he passes it off as fact. Really there is no understanding of our genetically ingrained insintcts. We do know that society can cause people to do things counter to our instincts, Suicide is the best example.
I think it's reasonable to believe instincts to protect women is a a plausible theory. But it's nothing more then a theory.
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
Hi Dio,
I read the article on Spartans. I am curious as to how it exactly sheds light on how men are socially conditioned to protect women?
Thanks!
Patrick
Hi Dio,
I read the article on Spartans. I am curious as to how it exactly sheds light on how men are socially conditioned to protect women?
Thanks!
Patrick
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
It shows that men can be socially conditioned to be protective of OTHER MEN, depending on the values that are ingrained into them. What my point was, was that men are protective of women mostly because society teaches them to be so. They could just as easily be taught to protect other men in the same situation, depending on the socialization.
It shows that men can be socially conditioned to be protective of OTHER MEN, depending on the values that are ingrained into them. What my point was, was that men are protective of women mostly because society teaches them to be so. They could just as easily be taught to protect other men in the same situation, depending on the socialization.
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
Thanks for the response. I may not agree with you, but appreciate your perspective.
Fighting units in general become protective of their 'Brothers In Arms'. This helps to assure that you protect each other's asses (no obvious pun to Sparta ).
Patrick
[ 23. April 2003, 12:20: Message edited by: Patrick ]
Thanks for the response. I may not agree with you, but appreciate your perspective.
Fighting units in general become protective of their 'Brothers In Arms'. This helps to assure that you protect each other's asses (no obvious pun to Sparta ).
Patrick
[ 23. April 2003, 12:20: Message edited by: Patrick ]
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Haha my I didn't realize I was stepping on a mine by putting in my two cents. However you fail to see that you are stepping right in my footsteps by outright denying a biological perspective. From a behaviorist point of view, yes, a man can be conditioned to act a certain way. From an evolutionary biological perspective though, the reasons for why it would be built in to protect the females makes sense. Protecting the furtherance of our species basically.
The nature vs. nurture argument will not be won here though, as it is still fought to this day by every psychologist on earth. I simply covered all the bases.
And my chivalry has nothing to do with the ladies as you suggest... Im not an egomaniac, just really really nice, thats all.
Haha my I didn't realize I was stepping on a mine by putting in my two cents. However you fail to see that you are stepping right in my footsteps by outright denying a biological perspective. From a behaviorist point of view, yes, a man can be conditioned to act a certain way. From an evolutionary biological perspective though, the reasons for why it would be built in to protect the females makes sense. Protecting the furtherance of our species basically.
The nature vs. nurture argument will not be won here though, as it is still fought to this day by every psychologist on earth. I simply covered all the bases.
And my chivalry has nothing to do with the ladies as you suggest... Im not an egomaniac, just really really nice, thats all.
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Ever thinkg that maybe society conditions men to protect women because when the first societys were formed they were formed around basic survival insincts? Such as protecting women?
Ever thinkg that maybe society conditions men to protect women because when the first societys were formed they were formed around basic survival insincts? Such as protecting women?
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
And we all know nice guys don't get no respect from the ladies Gotta be a bad boy... or at least do something psycho like spin fire for a hobby.
quote:It may make sense, but on the one side we have proven facts that say protective instincts are conditioned into a man, while so far I've seen no actual factual basis for the biological defensive behavior argument. Can you point me to some information that backs up this hypothesis?
From an evolutionary biological perspective though, the reasons for why it would be built in to protect the females makes sense. Protecting the furtherance of our species basically.
And we all know nice guys don't get no respect from the ladies Gotta be a bad boy... or at least do something psycho like spin fire for a hobby.
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [women men opinion] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Women (and Men) I need your opinion [19 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com