Author Topic: Women to fight in America's elite military units  (Read 13292 times)

okay let's put it this way
a woman and a man are both just as smart, levelheaded, and skilled with weaponry. hell, they're even at a similar weight.
the man however, is stronger.
who's getting picked?
The man. The one who has always withstood the test of time as a natural soldier. For thousands of years in early and late history.

This is probably the SECOND most stupid thing I have heard today

it's not his fault that men were chosen as the natural fighters, especially protectors of women.

the way i feel is that, i'm ALL for woman's right. gender equality is the way to go

but it would be crazy to not admit there are some things one gender can do that other genders can't. and that's just how it is

Says the guy who calls anyone who disagrees with him a handicap.
And is a furry.


Just because one women can get a disgustingly well defined and veiny upper body doesn't mean that the avarage women will be able to do well in combat.
no loving stuff. but the army doesn't take "the average woman". they take women that are qualified and capable for the job they'll be put in.

What most people seem to not get here is that the majority of women do not have to be capable to fight in these units.  Nor do any for the matter.  What this does mean is if there ARE any willing and able bodied women that want to fight in these units, they have the ability to.  

Most people here don't want to prevent women from getting into the special forces.

The fact is that most people, men and women, do net get into the unit because of the physical training. I'm not trying to be loveist, but what makes you think that women will fare just as well as men in the physical training?
it's true, they will be less likely to pass the training. but if they do, that is proof enough that they are suited to be a soldier, and we shouldn't stop them from entering the armed forces.

it's true, they will be less likely to pass the training. but if they do, that is proof enough that they are suited to be a soldier, and we shouldn't stop them from entering the armed forces.
There are tons of probabilitys that having women in the armed forces will cause, such as separate housing, loveualitys not only for gays but for straights now, etc...
It's not a reason of loveism, its a reason of problems

the way i feel is that, i'm ALL for woman's right. gender equality is the way to go

but it would be crazy to not admit there are some things one gender can do that other genders can't. and that's just how it is
nobody's denying that. but we should leave the option for women to enter the forces, if they can pass the tests. it's as simple as that.
There are tons of probabilitys that having women in the armed forces will cause, such as separate housing, loveualitys not only for gays but for straights now, etc...
It's not a reason of loveism, its a reason of problems
i have no idea what that first sentence means. or the second one actually. rephrase please

There are tons of probabilitys that having women in the armed forces will cause, such as separate housing, loveualitys not only for gays but for straights now, etc...
It's not a reason of loveism, its a reason of problems
Women can already be in the armed forces. They have been able to enlist for a long time. What are you even talking about?

Women can already be in the armed forces. They have been able to enlist for a long time. What are you even talking about?
I guess armed forces would inquire being a cop too, so put simply a soldier in combat
i have no idea what that first sentence means. or the second one actually. rephrase please
Meaning women in above statement would cause lots of problems, not to seem loveist.

I guess armed forces would inquire being a cop too, so put simply a soldier in combat






combat isn't gender exclusive either, dumbass.







combat isn't gender exclusive either, dumbass.
so you're saying women have the same capabilities as men in combat?

I guess armed forces would inquire being a cop too, so put simply a soldier in combatMeaning women in above statement would cause lots of problems, not to seem loveist.
I'm not talking about the police force, I'm talking about military level work. Women can enlist into pretty much every military organization at will. I could enlist if I wanted to (although I am not physically or mentally prepared for the work and probably never will be, and I also have zero interest in it.)

so you're saying women have the same capabilities as men in combat?
the US army drills and regiments their soldiers to the point where gender doesn't matter.  all people, however, will still be subject to simple biological variation (i.e. john doe is stronger than jane smith, just as jane smith is stronger than joe shmoe, yet they are all soldiers in combat).

to flat out state that "everyone has the same capability in combat" is a bit far reaching.  there are a huge variety of factors that come into play for every situation.  i do think women can have the same capability as a man in combat.  i can't say that every woman has the same capability of every man because that's just too much.

the US army drills and regiments their soldiers to the point where gender doesn't matter.  all people, however, will still be subject to simple biological variation (i.e. john doe is stronger than jane smith, just as jane smith is stronger than joe shmoe, yet they are all soldiers in combat).

to flat out state that "everyone has the same capability in combat" is a bit far reaching.  there are a huge variety of factors that come into play for every situation.  i do think women can have the same capability as a man in combat.  i can't say that every woman has the same capability of every man because that's just too much.
you can't bend human biology. you can't bend the mood swings that come with a period out of a woman. you can't bend the hormones out of people. the simple fact is that on average, a woman is weaker than a man physically. nothing, not even army conditioning, can change that.