Women soldiers?

[BaronVonRed 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ Nov. 22 2002,13:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Women are women, and men are men. They are NOT equal in physical or mental abilities, they are DIFFERENT. They both have their strengths and weaknesses as humans. No man can do EVERYTHING better than a woman can do, and no woman can do EVERYTHING better than a man can do. That's the way it is throughout nature, and that's the way it was intended. Cry about it, argue about it, then deal with it.<span id='postcolor'>

No man/woman can do EVERYTHING better then another man/woman can do - generally.

But it's all about individual persons, not about men and women generally. You can not deny something for someone only because he/she is part of group that has some generally unacceptable attributes. (racism, nazism, sexism)

Woman are generally physically weaker that men are, but you think it shoud be reason to do not let that woman (from picture above) to be machinegunner ? (if she mets other needed criteria)<span id='postcolor'>

Real life isn't like QII/QIII or Unreal Tournament -in real life, women in combat are a liability.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Real life isn't like QII/QIII or Unreal Tournament -in real life, women in combat are a liability.<span id='postcolor'>

Run out of arguments, ey? If you havn't noticed the people here that are defending the womens rights to be in the military have a military background. Can you say the same?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cry about it, argue about it, then deal with it. <span id='postcolor'>

Better revert that for yourself Baron as your opinions and thoughts on that issue seem to be really nonsense.

[MesserJockel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Real life isn't like QII/QIII or Unreal Tournament -in real life,  women in combat are a liability.<span id='postcolor'>

is that so? well, then im gonna stop strafejumping to college

[BaronVonRed 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 22 2002,15:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Real life isn't like QII/QIII or Unreal Tournament -in real life, women in combat are a liability.<span id='postcolor'>

Run out of arguments, ey? If you havn't noticed the people here that are defending the womens rights to be in the military have a military background. Can you say the same?<span id='postcolor'>

No, I haven't run out of arguments, in fact, I'm not evne arguing. I am just presenting the facts: women, in general, do not measure up in combat to men, in general. The people that think otherwise have played too many games that depict women as equivalent on the battlefield. Just because you can't see that logic doesn't mean it's not a valid argument.

My military background is not only classified, it's irrelevant to the topic. It only takes common sense to know that A) women are physically inferior to men, and B) Because of 'A', they are not the best choice for combat soldiers.

Personally, I don't really care, because women are not allowed to serve in combat position in the U.S. Marines, THANK GOD, and since that's the most powerful army on the planet, that's really all you need to know.

[BaronVonRed 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Nov. 22 2002,15:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cry about it, argue about it, then deal with it. <span id='postcolor'>

Better revert that for yourself Baron as your opinions and thoughts on that issue seem to be really nonsense.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sorry, what? I've been ignoring you through most of this as all you do point fingers and call names and make accusations, but actually contribute nothing of any value. Why do you have such a hard time with the fact that men and women are NOT created equal?

Keep on whining......

[shadow 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,15:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My military background is not only classified, it's irrelevant to the topic. It only takes common sense to know that A) women are physically inferior to men, and B) Because of 'A', they are not the best choice for combat soldiers.

Personally, I don't really care, because women are not allowed to serve in combat position in the U.S. Marines, THANK GOD, and since that's the most powerful army on the planet, that's really all you need to know.<span id='postcolor'>

[Balschoiw 0]

So ?

I really DID explain why women and man are equally used in military nowadays. I have military experience in that and I guess many others were able to follow my posts here. Why do you take part in a discussion if you feel to ignore others ? Better talk to your TV set then.

I am really sorry, but the only one that is a bit off here is you. Totally.

If you cant separate facts from personal meanings it´s not my problem.

But even the blindest reader should see that you stand pretty alone with your chauvinistic, sexist, teenage thinking.

Answer the question you have been asked many times now:

Have you been to army and have you coworked with the women you tend to discriminate here ? Have you ?

It´s you that insults people not me.

And whining seems to be your favour, not mine. I am grown up.

[BaronVonRed 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ Nov. 22 2002,15:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,15:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My military background is not only classified, it's irrelevant to the topic. It only takes common sense to know that A) women are physically inferior to men, and B) Because of 'A', they are not the best choice for combat soldiers.

Personally, I don't really care, because women are not allowed to serve in combat position in the U.S. Marines, THANK GOD, and since that's the most powerful army on the planet, that's really all you need to know.<span id='postcolor'>

<span id='postcolor'>

Heh, heh, that is actually funny! Thanks!

[MesserJockel 0]

some hard facts?

as with everything gender-related, youll find arguments on both points of view

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq48-3f.htm

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V117/N52/combat.52w.html

http://www.uiowa.edu/~ournews/2001/april/0430military-women.html

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR896/

the last one is more like an overview for job opportunities, and i didnt read it in complete =)

the minerva community seems to be specially dedicated to everything related to women and military issues, just took a look at it

http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~minerva/

[Bart.Jan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Real life isn't like QII/QIII or Unreal Tournament -in real life,  women in combat are a liability.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not talking about games.

Untrained, badly trained or coward soldier in combat is liability. And it doesn't matter if that soldier is man or woman.

I can not realy understand why you think that trained woman is always worse than trained man.

If you got 10 trained men soldiers you can find the best and the worst one.

If you replace several of them by trained woman soldiers you can also find the best and the worst one with similiar results comparet to all-men squad. Same training gives you similar results despite of sex.

I'm not saying that armed forces are ready to efectively fight with women in their troops nowdays. But if there will be will to let women choose their occupation there will be more people to study how to solve possible problems, and at the end mixed troops will work on same (or better) efficiency as all-men troops works. But it will be hard and long work with "superior alpha" males in high politic and military posts.

I, personally, know several female soldiers and I think only few of them can be a good for combat. But also several of them are better then several male soldiers I know. There are even males that are not capable to be good combatants.

[BaronVonRed 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Nov. 22 2002,16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So ?

I really DID explain why women and man are equally used in military nowadays. I have military experience in that and I guess many others were able to follow my posts here. Why do you take part in a discussion if you feel to ignore others ? Better talk to your TV set then.

I am really sorry, but the only one that is a bit off here is you. Totally.

If you cant separate facts from personal meanings it´s not my problem.

But even the blindest reader should see that you stand pretty alone with your chauvinistic, sexist, teenage thinking.

Answer the question you have been asked many times now:

Have you been to army and have you coworked with the women you tend to discriminate here ? Have you ?

It´s you that insults people not me.

And whining seems to be your favour, not mine. I am grown up.<span id='postcolor'>

Call me all the names you want cause I could care less what YOUR opinion of me is and no matter how many names you come up with for me, it still ain't gonna change the facts, and the big fact that remains is that women don't make good combat soldiers.

And why are you so concerned with my military background? Is it because you SAY you have one? Does that make it a FACT? And saying that makes you feel special? Like only YOU now have a say? I can talk all about my 10 years as a U.S. Marine and my 9+ years as a Navy SEAL, where I was wounded and unable to return to combat, and my current post, which I CAN'T tell you about (I'm 40 years old - you do the math), but what would be the point? Saying it doesn't make it so. I can SAY anything I want just like you can SAY anything YOU want, but why bother, you're just going to revert to more name-calling anyway no matter what I say....

Question for YOU Mr. Military man: Have YOU ever seen a U.S. Marine up close and personal?

This is my last post on this issue. Too many people with bleedin' hearts and no grasp of reality.

[Balschoiw 0]

1. I didnt call you names in any post.

2. I have a military background and if you search the forums

   you will find some info on it.

<- check this pic

or this one:

3. Yes it´s still fact.

4. You told in ME forum you work in an office so what ?

5. Yes: Moga, Yugoslavia, Kongo, several Combined maneuvers where places where I met a lot of soldiers from different countries. And yes I have combat experience.

I really doubt your background. If you had this background you would have coworked with women in arms.

BTW i will scan a few more pics next week to contribute to the thread about a war pics, so stay tuned if you dont believe me. Really funny. You are the first to doubt my reputation and job.

[DarkLight 0]

Hell, a trained soldier is a trained soldier. There are men who can't make it through all the tests, and there are women who can't make it through the tests. But all the people who do make it through the tests, male or female, are good soldiers.

I saw this show on BBC2, it was about the SAS, how normal people have to do the same stuff as the guys from the SAS. One of the 3 remaining persons was a woman, and she beat a lot of guys. I bet there are a lot of women out there who can easily take a man down. And there's no need to panic about this and think that this isn't right because MEN RUUUULE THE EARTH. I mean come on, this is the year 2002.

It's normal that a well trained human being is strong and able to do that kinda stuff.

Just try to accept that men aren't always the strongest, there's nothing wrong with that...

[Frisbee 0]

Baron,it IS a fact that women in GENERAL are weaker,but still some physically are stronger than men,that should permit them to be a capable soldier,as I've said,I would love to have that female para on my side because she was more serious and probably better than most men(she was dog ugly and lesbian so don't imply things in that direction).As you know the Belgian paracommando's are widely respected for good reson,so don't think it isn't at least as physically hard to join them as to join the marines.The weak and mentally incapable (to fight) would get weeded out at selection and during training,so they'd have to be as capable as the men who went with them through training.

Physical fitness is just about the worst fact to use to say that women shouldn't be frontline fighters.

I think that it's a lot harder in the mind.

I *think* there was an experiment with male soldiers,and they couldn't bear the cries of a wounded woman and took too many risks to save them.This was in Israel,who also had(?) a completely female unit at one time,and may still have,to lazy to google.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Nov. 22 2002,10:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And yes I have combat experience.<span id='postcolor'>

where??

when have Germans seen combat since WW2?

[Balschoiw 0]

If you are in the UN and NATO there are enough combat missions you can take part in.

[E6Hotel 0]

WM's (Women Marines) can serve in any MOS except infantry, armor, or artillery. They fly Hornets and Super Cobras, and can serve as helo crew chiefs (where they would also serve as door gunners).

So why don't we let 'em in combat arms fields? After all, some women are physically fit enough.

It's because the USMC doesn't NEED them in combat arms. Women in combat units is the solution to a non-existent problem. From a personal perspective: Since laterally moving from the infantry I have met, lived with (barracks), worked with, and even worked for many WM's. (Dated one too -- but enough about that. ) Not one ever expressed  a desire to be a grunt.

We have a similar situation with our aviators. Some of the services allow pilots to have corrected vision. We don't. Is it discriminatory? Heck no. It's just that we have an ample supply of officers with 20/20, so we don't have to relax standards.

Semper Fi

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 22 2002,18:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WM's (Women Marines) can serve in any MOS except infantry, armor, or artillery. They fly Hornets and Super Cobras, and can serve as helo crew chiefs (where they would also serve as door gunners).

So why don't we let 'em in combat arms fields? After all, some women are physically fit enough.

It's because the USMC doesn't NEED them in combat arms. Women in combat units is the solution to a non-existent problem. From a personal perspective: Since laterally moving from the infantry I have met, lived with (barracks), worked with, and even worked for many WM's. (Dated one too -- but enough about that. ) Not one ever expressed  a desire to be a grunt.

We have a similar situation with our aviators. Some of the services allow pilots to have corrected vision. We don't. Is it discriminatory? Heck no. It's just that we have an ample supply of officers with 20/20, so we don't have to relax standards.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

Excellent reply E6!

I have to admit that I wasnt aware that the Marines employed women in aviation roles that might lead to combat. I think that sort of casts Barons assertion that there arent any women in the US Marines into doubt.

Sounds like BaronVonRed is a closet misogynist.

[-76-Chavez 0]

Hehe, in my boot camp the women´s obstacle course team was faster than the men´s one

Most women had to give away their backpack on the marches (and I had to carry them lol) but there were also many men who gave away their backpack and I didnt see any woman cry on the marches but some tough men...

I know that women are good soldiers very well and thats what counts for me...

[Bart.Jan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 22 2002,18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

It's because the USMC doesn't NEED them in combat arms. Women in combat units is the solution to a non-existent problem.

We have a similar situation with our aviators. Some of the services allow pilots to have corrected vision. We don't. Is it discriminatory? Heck no. It's just that we have an ample supply of officers with 20/20, so we don't have to relax standards.<span id='postcolor'>

Same way you can tell that goverment doesn't need black policemen/policewomen because there is lot of white candidates.

Women are citizens same way as men are. Because they are females they have no RIGHT to defend country as males ?

There are some requirements for various branches. If someone doesn't meets them he must go out. There are some people responsible for setting requirements. But is it some sort of defect to be female ?

[BaronVonRed 0]

* 1996: Twelve soldiers at Maryland's Aberdeen Proving Ground were accused of abusing female recruits; Staff Sgt. Delmar Simpson, a drill instructor, was convicted of six counts of rape.

* 1997: Lt. Kelly Flinn, the first woman to pilot a B-52 bomber, was discharged from the Air Force after having an affair with a married civilian and continuing the affair after being ordered to end it.

* 1997: Gene McKinney, the most senior enlisted man in the Army, was court-martialed for sexual harassment and obstruction of justice. Acquitted of the harassment charges but convicted of obstruction, he was dropped in rank and reprimanded.

* 1999: Command Sgt. Major Riley Miller, the Army's most senior enlisted man in Europe, was accused of sexually assaulting a female subordinate.

* 2000: Maj. Gen. Larry G. Smith was accused of sexual harassment by the highest-ranking woman in Army history, Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy. Smith was being considered to head the inspector-general's office; in that post, he would have been responsible for investigating harassment claims.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ Nov. 22 2002,18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Same way you can tell that goverment doesn't need black policemen/policewomen because there is lot of white candidates.

Women are citizens same way as men are. Because they are females they have no RIGHT to defend country as males ?<span id='postcolor'>

No one has the "right" to be a policeman, or a soldier. The rule of thumb, as you alluded to, is that if you qualify according to the standards established by the organization, you may be considered.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ Nov. 22 2002,18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are some requirements for various branches. If someone doesn't meets them he must go out. There are some people responsible for setting requirements. But is it some sort of defect to be female ?<span id='postcolor'>

It's not a question of whether females are defective, it's a question of whether there is a need for them in combat arms. (1) There is no need, and (2) their presence would create more problems than it would solve. The military is not the place to conduct social experiments. As an extreme example, would someone in a wheelchair have the "right" to have an infantry table of organization changed so that he could join?

edit: sloppy quoting

Semper Fi

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 22 2002,19:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*  1996: Twelve soldiers at Maryland's Aberdeen Proving Ground were accused of abusing female recruits; Staff Sgt. Delmar Simpson, a drill instructor, was convicted of six counts of rape.

 <span id='postcolor'>

So, the women were raped, and they're in the wrong?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> * 1997: Lt. Kelly Flinn, the first woman to pilot a B-52 bomber, was discharged from the Air Force after having an affair with a married civilian and continuing the affair after being ordered to end it.

<span id='postcolor'>

Of course, no man has ever done anything like it....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

* 1997: Gene McKinney, the most senior enlisted man in the Army, was court-martialed for sexual harassment and obstruction of justice. Acquitted of the harassment charges but convicted of obstruction, he was dropped in rank and reprimanded.

* 1999: Command Sgt. Major Riley Miller, the Army's most senior enlisted man in Europe, was accused of sexually assaulting a female subordinate.

* 2000: Maj. Gen. Larry G. Smith was accused of sexual harassment by the highest-ranking woman in Army history, Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy. Smith was being considered to head the inspector-general's office; in that post, he would have been responsible for investigating harassment claims.

<span id='postcolor'>

See my first coment

[BaronVonRed 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Nov. 22 2002,18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 22 2002,189)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WM's (Women Marines) can serve in any MOS except infantry, armor, or artillery. They fly Hornets and Super Cobras, and can serve as helo crew chiefs (where they would also serve as door gunners).

So why don't we let 'em in combat arms fields? After all, some women are physically fit enough.

It's because the USMC doesn't NEED them in combat arms. Women in combat units is the solution to a non-existent problem. From a personal perspective: Since laterally moving from the infantry I have met, lived with (barracks), worked with, and even worked for many WM's. (Dated one too -- but enough about that. ) Not one ever expressed a desire to be a grunt.

We have a similar situation with our aviators. Some of the services allow pilots to have corrected vision. We don't. Is it discriminatory? Heck no. It's just that we have an ample supply of officers with 20/20, so we don't have to relax standards.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

Excellent reply E6!

I have to admit that I wasnt aware that the Marines employed women in aviation roles that might lead to combat. I think that sort of casts Barons assertion that there arent any women in the US Marines into doubt.

Sounds like BaronVonRed is a closet misogynist.<span id='postcolor'>

I expected better from a MODERATOR, but I'll just add that name to the growing stack. A REAL mature move. What are you, twelve? Besides, I said a LONG time ago that I LOVE women, just not in combat. Oh, and by the way:

In spring 1991, in the wake of Desert Storm, Colorado Rep. Pat Schroeder introduced a bill to repeal the prohibition against women flying combat missions. While that bill was pending, sexual misbehavior at the annual Tailhook gathering of naval aviators developed into a scandal. The bill passed, allowing women to fly combat missions, and the navy soon began allowing women on combatant ships.

In another controversial move, "co-ed" basic training began in 1994. Opponents argue that in basic training and throughout the military, female recruits are held to lower physical standards than men -- or that standards for both have been weakened to allow women to pass.

"The services are always looking at physical fitness standards. The standards between men and women are different," says Lt. Col. Susan Kolb, spokesperson for the Defense Advisory Committee On Women In The Services (DACOWITS).