RE: recruting women for combat

RE: recruting women for combat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Cinnamongirl67 -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/4/2016 4:42:10 AM)
I think women in the armed forces is a benefit, but not in all areas. Men are much stronger on the average. Honestly I don't believe it would be fair to a man to have a physically lesser in areas such as hand to hand combat as a back up.

bounty44 -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/4/2016 4:56:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Talking about this, I soooooo badly wanna see Ronda Roussey versus Mayweather! I know Ronda got beat up recently, but I'd love to see a girl beat that Mayweather idiot up in a fair inside ring match ha! sports where quantitative records are indicative of quality provide some insight into this. in sports like swimming and track and field, top high school boys in the country trounce world class women. in fact, if its a dual meet between the two, the boys shut the women out. people used to suggesting serena Williams should play on the men's circuit. she once played a guy who was ranked like 130th and got beaten badly, with her acknowledging after the fact there's no way it could happen. a similar thing happened with Annika sorenstam some years ago in golf when she played some pga events. at all equivalent levels of competition, and even at the weight classified ones, males are faster, stronger, quicker, more agile, and more aggressive. women have it over men in some measures of flexibility, but not nearly enough to overcome the other deficits. I cannot help but think this sort of thinking is reinforced by movies like mr and mrs smith where Angelina jolie and brad pitt are represented as combative equals. or avengers where scarlett johansson beats up men close to twice her size. its good for the "you go girl" sentiment, but has little to no basis in reality.

Aylee -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/4/2016 7:49:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littleclip the military is begining to recruit women for all combat roles. the plans are under review, there could be women serving in the former all male marine and navy infantry. how do you see this good bad undecided I think that it is a bad thing. Segregated combat units, done properly, would be better. Integrated combat forces are less effective and have more injuries. Overall this leads to more deaths. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html 1. Females suffer upwards of 25% greater incidence of debilitating joint, bone and tendon damage over and above what is common for males in even easy level infantry training. Source, our service academies. The training does not rise to the level of physical demand required for actual infantry training. And infantry training does not rise to the actual level of demand required in many war scenarios. It is known full well, and tested to the nth, that as the pysicality demands increase, the debilitating injury rate also increases steadily for females far above and beyond that suffered by males. 2. Mixing genders in close confines does, in fact, negatively impact both discipline and cohesiveness. Source, mixed gender crewed ships. And, on ships, it can be set up so that females and males have completely separate housing and facilities. This can not be done in the field except at large unit HQs. 3. Female biology does not allow the necessary long term physical endurance necessary for infantry in a field of battle. This has long been known. The female body suffers much more destructive problems when exposed to the physical demands common to infantry on campaign than does the typical male body. For me, the purpose of maintaining armed forces is to fight and win wars. I don't care about "opportunities" for women. And I do believe that an armed force that tells its troops "We're willing to kill some of you to uphold the important principle of "opportunity" for those who can't perform will provide neither opportunity nor performance.

KenDckey -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/4/2016 9:31:01 PM)
http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/here-is-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-armys-new-incredible-eye-protection quote: The most noticeable feature of the SPS is the new Ballistic Combat Shirt, or BCS, which has been updated with soft armor on the neck, shoulders, high chest and high back to protect against 9mm rounds and shrapnel. The lower part of the shirt is still a breathable, fire-resistant material. It also features the Integrated Head Protection System, which gives the soldier the ability to attach extra armor to the top of the helmet to provide additional protection against snipers shooting down on soldiers riding in an open turret, as well as the armored facemask to protect against gunfire and shrapnel. The SPS is also part of the Army’s effort to lighten the soldiers load, Williamson said. “The goal for the entire system is 10 to 15 percent less weight than the soldier carries today,” he said. Marine Brig. Gen. Joe Shrader, commander of Marine Corps Systems Command told lawmakers that the Marine Corps often works with the Army on individual protection equipment programs, such as the new “Enhanced Combat Helmet that we have developed with the Army and now are final stages if fielding the first 77,000 of those.”

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/6/2016 6:26:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: littleclip the military is begining to recruit women for all combat roles. the plans are under review, there could be women serving in the former all male marine and navy infantry. how do you see this good bad undecided I think that it is a bad thing. Segregated combat units, done properly, would be better. Integrated combat forces are less effective and have more injuries. Overall this leads to more deaths. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html 1. Females suffer upwards of 25% greater incidence of debilitating joint, bone and tendon damage over and above what is common for males in even easy level infantry training. Source, our service academies. The training does not rise to the level of physical demand required for actual infantry training. And infantry training does not rise to the actual level of demand required in many war scenarios. It is known full well, and tested to the nth, that as the pysicality demands increase, the debilitating injury rate also increases steadily for females far above and beyond that suffered by males. 2. Mixing genders in close confines does, in fact, negatively impact both discipline and cohesiveness. Source, mixed gender crewed ships. And, on ships, it can be set up so that females and males have completely separate housing and facilities. This can not be done in the field except at large unit HQs. 3. Female biology does not allow the necessary long term physical endurance necessary for infantry in a field of battle. This has long been known. The female body suffers much more destructive problems when exposed to the physical demands common to infantry on campaign than does the typical male body. For me, the purpose of maintaining armed forces is to fight and win wars. I don't care about "opportunities" for women. And I do believe that an armed force that tells its troops "We're willing to kill some of you to uphold the important principle of "opportunity" for those who can't perform will provide neither opportunity nor performance. Excellent post! I was about to make the same points, until I saw this one. :)

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/6/2016 6:32:31 AM)
ORIGINAL: Greta75 No physical requirement is always waterdowned for women no matter what, because it's impossible for women to meet men's physical standards. Not physically possible. Do you have any validation for this opinion? All fitness test has lower standards for women. Would you have any validation for this opinion? But ya know, in Vietnam war, it was the 4'10 80lbs women that took down 6ft, 250lbs American soldiers with ease, so I guess it could work. The trigger pull on an ak is about 7 pounds...how big do you have to be to pull 7 pounds?

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/6/2016 6:35:12 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD They lied. Since you were never there how the phoque would you know. How was she suppossed to have taken them down, with the clap? Their t.o. weapon was an ak not a vagina.

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/6/2016 7:01:27 AM)
ORIGINAL: bounty44 sports where quantitative records are indicative of quality provide some insight into this. Actually it does not. in sports like swimming and track and field, top high school boys in the country trounce world class women. in fact, if its a dual meet between the two, the boys shut the women out. Do you have any validation for this opinion? people used to suggesting serena Williams should play on the men's circuit. she once played a guy who was ranked like 130th and got beaten badly, with her acknowledging after the fact there's no way it could happen. Actually he was ranked 205. a similar thing happened with Annika sorenstam some years ago in golf when she played some pga events. at all equivalent levels of competition, and even at the weight classified ones, males are faster, stronger, quicker, more agile, and more aggressive. women have it over men in some measures of flexibility, but not nearly enough to overcome the other deficits. Not always. http://www.therichest.com/sports/10-memorable-times-women-beat-men-in-sports/?view=all I cannot help but think this sort of thinking is reinforced by movies like mr and mrs smith where Angelina jolie and brad pitt are represented as combative equals. or avengers where scarlett johansson beats up men close to twice her size. its good for the "you go girl" sentiment, but has little to no basis in reality. Your opinions share a similar position.

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/6/2016 7:08:50 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD Yes I know they protray us as monsters. How do you think they should protray those who invaded their country and murdered millions of men women and children?

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/6/2016 7:10:18 AM)
ORIGINAL: bigjb62 I know of one incident in San Diego where a female f14 pilot who couldn't develop the skills to do carrier landings but was allowed to become a carrier pilot anyway and it cost her her life. Perhaps you could tell us just who this was?

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/6/2016 7:11:52 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD They certainly don't mention that we kicked their rear in every battle of any size. Is that why we lost that war

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/6/2016 3:48:39 PM)
If they're not, then they're compromising the fighting ability of the force. The average infantry grunt has to carry a pack with a minimum weight of 50 pounds and an average weight of between 95 and 135. In Afghanistan, it's frequently 150. Where did you get this data? What does a soldier need to carry that weighs 150 pounds? If anyone seriously thinks the average woman is going to carry her own body weight on her back, they're delusional. Anyone who thinks the average man is going to carry his owh body weight on his back is delusional. Bottom line, if women can't meet the physical and mental requirements for combat, they just shouldn't be there. Problem sweetie, is that you have no clue what those requirements are.

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/6/2016 3:55:04 PM)
ORIGINAL: bigjb62 I know of one incident in San Diego where a female f14 pilot who couldn't develop the skills to do carrier landings but was allowed to become a carrier pilot anyway and it cost her her life. You are obviously not aware that all naval aviators must be able to land on a carrier?

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/7/2016 4:16:10 PM)
ORIGINAL: bigjb62 I know of one incident in San Diego where a female f14 pilot who couldn't develop the skills to do carrier landings but was allowed to become a carrier pilot anyway and it cost her her life. Still waiting for your validation of this bullshit.

bigjb62 -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/7/2016 8:32:00 PM)
quote: I know of one incident in San Diego where a female f14 pilot who couldn't develop the skills to do carrier landings but was allowed to become a carrier pilot anyway and it cost her her life. Perhaps you could tell us just who this was? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/95/costly-affirmative-action.htm http://yarchive.net/mil/f14_hultgreen_accident.html http://www.cmrlink.org/articles/print/34453?author=0&image=0&domain=0

dcnovice -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/7/2016 8:56:01 PM)
FR Googling Hultgreen, I came across an interesting tidbit. The report also found that [Lt. Carey] Lohrenz, a native of Green Bay who graduated in the top 10 percent of her training class, was ordered re-evaluated and removed from flight status while male pilots with worse records in her carrier squadron were allowed to continue flying without re-evaluation. One of these male pilots, Lt. Cmdr. Stacy Bates, was returned to operations after crashing an F-14. He subsequently crashed again in Tennessee, killing himself, his back-seat radar intercept officer and three civilians on the ground. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-07-15/news/9707150337_1_carey-lohrenz-kara-hultgreen-pilots

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/8/2016 4:34:18 AM)
ORIGINAL: bigjb62 quote: I know of one incident in San Diego where a female f14 pilot who couldn't develop the skills to do carrier landings but was allowed to become a carrier pilot anyway and it cost her her life. Perhaps you could tell us just who this was? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/95/costly-affirmative-action.htm http://yarchive.net/mil/f14_hultgreen_accident.html http://www.cmrlink.org/articles/print/34453?author=0&image=0&domain=0 Would be the same lt. hultgreen who had oer 1200 hours of flight time in the f 14.? Would be the same lt. hultgreen who had more than 600 landings in a f 14? Would this be the same lt. hultgreen who had 58 traps (carrier landings) 48 of which were in the f 14? Would this be the same f 14 that was the most sophistacated aircraft in the world at the time? Would this be the same f 14 that was crashed by 160 men and one woman?

WickedsDesire -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/8/2016 6:07:56 AM)
beginning? what backward land do you come from and is the world still flat. And the bitches, I mean clearly inferior beings, place still behind the kitchen cooker conjuring me up muffins for the want of my belly. They are easily most men equals. Granted I am not most men but I would like to see the day they are tooled up in boots and corsets - latex ones, for that mood takes me today.

bigjb62 -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/8/2016 8:54:12 AM)
I lived in San Diego for 30 years and was still living there when all this happened and there was plenty of testimony from people who knew her and were there when all this went down including her co-pilot. I'm not sure if the recording is still available of the accident with her co-pilot yelling at her to apply more power to the aircraft and her not applying enough was the reason for the crash. It's a well known problem with that air craft that when the plane began to stall it would roll over and that's exactly what happened. The co-pilot survived because he new what was happening and ejected albeit almost to late because he was seriously injured. The Navy and the Government will never admit that it was political correctness that allowed her to be put in a position that ultimately cost Kara Hultgreen's life. I have no doubt that most if not all small minded liberals will not see the truth as political correctness is one of their religious commandments and like all thing's liberal the truth takes a back seat to the their religion.

mnottertail -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/8/2016 9:01:59 AM)
there is no question of nutsuckers small minds, and simultaneous zika brains. An anecdote does not serve as the synecdoche. Consider John McCain. Professional plane crasher.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875