|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jan 20, 2011 5:40:19 GMT -5
I'll give you someone who would pistol whip you the second you opened your mouth: Lyudmila Pavlichenko. Heard of her? Killed 309 German soldiers in WW2. Best female sniper out there and in the top 10 best snipers in history. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_PavlichenkoSOVIET PROPAGANDA. And a single specimen doesn't prove anything, statistics, please. Well, statistics show that women on average have less muscle mass and more body fat percentage than men. Either most of the women don't grow up in same situation as boys, or what you're saying is wrong. Again, read that Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces thing I just posted. A citation would be nice. Nope, I have it in my little mind that women are, on average, physically inferior to men, which is backed by scientific evidence and statistics rather than my own prejudices. It isn't fucking soviet propaganda you dickwad. Soviet propaganda is Visily Zeitsev. Also, you can't fucking cite something from twenty years ago. Shit changes. But I guess out of the two of us only I have bothered to keep up with things. Give me something more recent, say in the past 5 years and maybe I'll believe you. Until then you are a dickwad and shall remain as such. Also that bullshit you posted? It's bullshit. Get me something that wasn't done with such a small group of women compared to men and wasn't conducted by a military man. Besides, even if women were physically inferior in this day and age that doesn't matter. Because guess what? You aren't hefting a sword and shield anymore. It's a gun. or lobbing a grenade. Neither are particularly heavy to need physical strength above normal every day strength. And yes, it's been tested. Oh and LOOKIE! www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/women-military-commission-combat_n_809241.html
|
|
|
Post by georgebullocks on Jan 20, 2011 5:43:31 GMT -5
You see? Just the way we evolved. God is misogynist.
All right, I cited wikipedia, sue me.
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Jan 20, 2011 5:49:22 GMT -5
You see? Just the way we evolved. God is misogynist. All right, I cited wikipedia, sue me.Nice attempt at a poe. You actually had me convinced, just for a moment, that you really were an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by georgebullocks on Jan 20, 2011 6:04:15 GMT -5
You mean female population in United States experienced some dramatic shift in their physiology in the last 20 years, their muscle mass magically became larger and their bones less prone to fracture? I mean, come on, human physiology doesn't change that fast. No, it is an thorough study conducted by professionals. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Commission_on_the_Assignment_of_Women_in_the_Armed_Forces Well, as it happens, war is more than shooting guns and lobbing grenades. Most of the time you're just getting things like go on patrols with 50kg eqiupments and dig foxholes and fill sandbags and stuff. Bureaucrats are always right!
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jan 20, 2011 6:45:02 GMT -5
georgebullocks, you're right about women having less muscle mass ON AVERAGE. Let me repeat that: ON AVERAGE. What everyone has been flooding the thread with on the first page were examples of women who surpassed that average, were on the higher region of the muscular distribution curve. There are lots of women who do have the required muscles, equalling (or even surpassing) some of their male colleagues. And they want to enter the military. Why deny them?
It's legitimate to have an average characterization of a population group. What you can't do is apply that to an individual member. Your conclusion that every single woman is unfit for military service is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by georgebullocks on Jan 20, 2011 6:49:52 GMT -5
georgebullocks, you're right about women having less muscle mass ON AVERAGE. Let me repeat that: ON AVERAGE. What everyone has been flooding the thread with on the first page were examples of women who surpassed that average, were on the higher region of the muscular distribution curve. There are lots of women who do have the required muscles, equalling (or even surpassing) some of their male colleagues. And they want to enter the military. Why deny them? It's legitimate to have an average characterization of a population group. What you can't do is apply that to an individual member. Your conclusion that every single woman is unfit for military service is wrong. Yeah, fair point. I concede.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jan 20, 2011 6:56:50 GMT -5
I did however like this comment on the topic:
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jan 20, 2011 7:45:47 GMT -5
Women should be allowed in combat as long as they pass the same requirments as men do. Combat, even today is more then just pulling the trigger. As long a person can can do the job, let them.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Jan 20, 2011 8:03:46 GMT -5
Women should be allowed in combat as long as they pass the same requirments as men do. Combat, even today is more then just pulling the trigger. As long a person can can do the job, let them. This, arguing about the average means squat unless we're suddenly drafting a significant chunk of the population. If a woman is qualified for combat, along the same qualifications for men, then let her fight. Odds are less would be able to qualify, but I can assure you more of the female volunteers would be able to pass the qualifications than the number of men from my office who would be able to pass if suddenly drafted.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jan 20, 2011 8:19:39 GMT -5
I did however like this comment on the topic: honestly, I think allowing Negroes to serve is an experiment that has been allowed to go on too long. And those integrated units? Total fail.
|
|
|
Post by tgrwulf on Jan 20, 2011 9:41:52 GMT -5
Georgebullocks:
Do you realize how many different kinds of combat roles there are? I have friends and relatives who've served in the armed forces, who range everything from a sniper to basically a frontline grunt.
Even IF you were right that women were to weak to do demanding physical work, many roles, like sniper, use more of other aspects of your body. Being a sniper takes patience, smarts, skill, timing, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
And as far as being physically fit, when you get to the regular army, well, let's just say you don't see any fat female soldiers, while I know overweight male soldiers who are STILL serving in combat positions. Not berating people who are overweight, just saying, it kind of goes against what you're saying.
The guy in the article is a dumbass. And you can tell he's bought into all the far right fear mongering too, because of all his talk about communism and everything and the end.
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Jan 20, 2011 10:43:00 GMT -5
Yla already touched on it, but it's not like there is some standard that every single man and every single woman touch on. I know one woman who could probably snap a tree in half if she felt like it, and I know a guy who can barely walk up the stairs without wheezing and panting like he's about to collapse. Now, which one do you think is more suitable for combat?
Suitability really varies from case to case. People are not Xerox copies- everyone has different skills and abilities.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on Jan 20, 2011 11:03:37 GMT -5
georgebullocks, you're right about women having less muscle mass ON AVERAGE. Let me repeat that: ON AVERAGE. What everyone has been flooding the thread with on the first page were examples of women who surpassed that average, were on the higher region of the muscular distribution curve. There are lots of women who do have the required muscles, equalling (or even surpassing) some of their male colleagues. And they want to enter the military. Why deny them? It's legitimate to have an average characterization of a population group. What you can't do is apply that to an individual member. Your conclusion that every single woman is unfit for military service is wrong. Yeah, fair point. I concede. For the record...we dont fill sand bags or dig fox holes anymore. This isn't WWII. Sand bags come pre-filled on the back of a deuce and a half and yeah...Foxholes really aren't used so much anymore. Trench warfare is pretty much done for..
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jan 20, 2011 13:35:46 GMT -5
What I want to know is, if the average woman is so much weaker than the average man (I don't doubt that they're a little weaker, due to all that hormone and gender roles shit) then why were they encouraged to be homemakers for so long? Homemaking ain't for the weak, especially if you don't have the lovely modern comforts of vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, etc.
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Jan 20, 2011 14:30:47 GMT -5
The physical differences of women doesn't imped them from warfare. If it seems that on average, women are weaker than men in our culture, it's because they are raised to be that way. There are other cultural context in which women are full participants of war. The idea of women being meek, docile, weak, and in need of protections is just our cultural expectation of them.
Despite how the overbearing gender roles shapes them, women in our society are still highly capable of being on the front-line.
|
|