Women should not go...
no...@unt.edu
Christine A. Owens wrote:
> Yes, the reason was psychological. But, it had NOTHING to do with
> training of the WOMEN. The entire problem was with the MEN, who were
> not able to face the idea of women captives being raped and tortured
> to death.
> Chris Owens
Now THERE is a real problem! Men actually wanting to protect females!
What a strange and twisted thought!
FYI, if they want to do it, and are able to do it, and the standards
aren't lowered so they can . . . more power to them. But I think the
"gals" will only find it as rotten and hard as the guys have. Who are
we to "spare" them such experience if they want it though?
Later,
Randy
Doug
Big Gun wrote:
> I have stationed at Bragg since 1984 and recall no such study. None of
> my friends at SWC know anything about it either. This doesn't mean it
> hasn't happened somewhere else but it didn't happen here.
>
> Based on his previous comments I doubt the veracity of the stated
> results of this study as well.
There was a one hour documentary on PBS that went through
the whole thing. Now as I stated to another poster, since
I didn't write down the Army documentation, the doctor
running the experiment (a military doctor) I guess the
entire thing was a hoax. Thanks for making this vet so
welcome in this group. You guys want to be a bunch of
armchair experts, go right ahead.
I'm not and never said I was.
So, I guess I'll have to ask you for any documentation and
or studies that conclude women are NOT fit for combat.
Is there any? And you can even call your buddies if you want.
My original response was to a poster that named the ability
to do combat and the only ability to do combat as the
capacity to be a cold blooded killer and nothing else.
My my, how things have changed.
You guys have a need to "win" this discussion?
You got it.
See ya.
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------
The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
and do not reflect those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------
************************************************************
Doug
Michael wrote:
> I asked for some background on the post and what did I get? There you
Get this Michael or whoever you say you are,
I don't need your permission to say anything.
Got it?
So if you want to play the academic game,
let's put the ball back in your court.
Where's YOUR study that says women are unfit for combat?
Calling your buddies doesn't count either.
Michael
>
> There was a one hour documentary on PBS that went through
> the whole thing. Now as I stated to another poster, since
> I didn't write down the Army documentation, the doctor
> running the experiment (a military doctor) I guess the
> entire thing was a hoax. Thanks for making this vet so
> welcome in this group. You guys want to be a bunch of
> armchair experts, go right ahead.
> I'm not and never said I was.
>
> So, I guess I'll have to ask you for any documentation and
> or studies that conclude women are NOT fit for combat.
> Is there any? And you can even call your buddies if you want.
>
> My original response was to a poster that named the ability
> to do combat and the only ability to do combat as the
> capacity to be a cold blooded killer and nothing else.
> My my, how things have changed.
>
> You guys have a need to "win" this discussion?
> You got it.
>
> See ya.
>
the needed information. Then the hot shoe would be on my foot. In this
case it was/is on yours. So, PBS (and I'll leave my personal opinions
on PBS completely out of it.) Can you recall the name of the show or
series, the commentator or anything else? I have (believe it or not) a
friend that works for them and they might be able to identify the thing.
Then I can, or someone else since I'm out of here after the tenth
instant, can review and comment.
Michael
Michael
I rest my case, the opposition has done the job for me.
Doug
Michael wrote:
> Now now, don't pout. Of course I would respond with the actual study or
> the needed information. Then the hot shoe would be on my foot. In this
> case it was/is on yours. So, PBS (and I'll leave my personal opinions
> on PBS completely out of it.) Can you recall the name of the show or
> series, the commentator or anything else? I have (believe it or not) a
> friend that works for them and they might be able to identify the thing.
> Then I can, or someone else since I'm out of here after the tenth
> instant, can review and comment.
>
> Michael
Listen, Michael. I don't need you cross checking me like
some congressional committee chairman on a comment I
made about a tv show in some discussion group. You want to
act like a lawyer go ahead.
The 10th SF at Devens had two women running in their ranks
at Devens more than 20 years ago. Like '76.
At least one of these women jumped with the men in the
exercises up there. I did dive training on the other side
of Devens across Route 2 in the pond over there with them
under SFer Cpt. MacDonald. I was NOT SF. The woman who I
casually knew was their photographer and I'm sorry no I don't
remember her name or MOS. She worked part time as a waitress
at a bar in Searstown down Rt2 in Leominster, and not at the
'Fort' in Ayer, if you know what those were. You probably don't.
No matter. I'm not going to doubt your term because of it.
At that time, I was surprised women were allowed into the
actual jumps with the men for combat training.
But when I was at Bad Tolz in Germany, I did not see ANY
women with the men. The only difference I thought was
this is "real time". So although women could 'train' with
the men in the States, they didn't go full combat overseas.
There was a SF bar at Bad Tolz where the owner a former
SFer challenged me that he had ANY insignia the Army ever
had. I bet $10 that he could not have the insignia for the
American Indians who served during WWII as cryptograhers
(the Japanese couldn't figure out that language). I thought
there were only 12 of them and after almost 20 years, all of
them were either lost or held on by the members or families
of the members. I lost. He had one. And gee, Michael, since
I can't tell you exactly where on the wall the insignia was,
this all must be bullshit.
And I guess since I can't show you the $10 I lost, the above
is also something you want to track down?
Go ahead, or blow off.
Michael
Mucho previous clipped, as we left our heroine was attempting to drag
yet another school of red herrings through the newsgroup. So once again,
the intrepid Michael attempts to save the young lady from further
embarassing perils (now if she was only named Pauline!) In other words,
we had to clip to get this to post so you need to read the proceeding
articles to figure out everything!"
"Not at all, Capt. MacDonald is a real live person from those years gone
by and when the two women were assigned to the 10th Group at Devens they
were preceded by some at Fort Bragg. If I remember correctly there were
two in the 5th SFGA admin office for starters.
Not however, the issue. I'm still trying to track down the PBS
broadcast. For the benefit of the others who are more factually
oriented and less overly sensitive my friend at PBS seems to remember
such a show and is attempting to figure out who did it and when. Once
that is available might be able to obtain a copy and do a comparison of
the test versus Ranger training. However as I posted earlier I'm
shutting down my system on the 10th instant and heading back to sailing.
So if I don't get the information maybe somebody else can follow up.
We're obviously not going to get any help from the originator.
PS. as regards those early female assignees to SF units - some were jump
qualified but NONE had to meet the same APRT standards for physical
fitness as did the men. First there were two sets of standards, and then
when a complaint was filed on that the men's standards were lowered to
accomodate the women. It was more like skydiving school for them. Still
- they did jump and that says a lot right there, more than a lot of male
REMF's ever did.
PPS. Keep the $10.00 but as my good buddy Mayday Jim says, "someday,
somewhere, in some bar on some beach on island you're buying!"
Note: Two days left to beat up on me! If you'ld like a real adventure
and think you are to old see this website, it's about my new home for
the next several years. http://ils.unc.edu/maritime.alvei.html.
Circumnavigating the world in a three master! Life - it's a continuing
adventure.
Michael
Doug
Michael wrote:
> PS. as regards those early female assignees to SF units - some were jump
> qualified but NONE had to meet the same APRT standards for physical
> fitness as did the men. First there were two sets of standards, and then
> when a complaint was filed on that the men's standards were lowered to
> accomodate the women. It was more like skydiving school for them. Still
> - they did jump and that says a lot right there, more than a lot of male
> REMF's ever did.
Never said anything of the sort Michael.
Best to stay with your hole in the water.
I'm sorry, I meant sailboat.
Doug
Paul Rieger wrote:
> Thanks Doug for a very thoughtful and to the point reply. Guess
> I went over you head with my points, if you cannot respond to an idea
> then attack the messenger. I found out the hard way once that youth and
> speed could be beaten by age and experence. When I was 22 our Bn Xo used
> to get into the Tiger Pit near the 2nd Bde area and used to go 4 or 5 on
> one with us youngsters and kick our butts. Nice try Doug.
Well, when you get on a newsgroup telling everyone
about ripping someone a new orifice, you should know
by now to be prepared for anything.
You know, "Proper Preparation Prevents ... "
> If politics aren't involved they why does the Senate keep a list
> of officers that were at the 91 tailhook( correct year I think) and when
> their appointment came up to be voted on the list was used to stop the
> officer from going on. A F/A-18 Cdr to Cpt promotion was stopped even
> with no charges with tailhook, no nasty OERs, no UMCJ action, just the
> Court of the Star Chamber style of justice. If politics are not involved
> then lets have ONE standard of testing for the Army and let the cards
> fall, pass of fail.
I have no problem with this at all. In fact, that's my point.
But, my point to you was better throw out age limitations too.
No more age breaks, either.
Wouldn't you agree if a female was able to stay in the Bear Pit
just like anyone else (I'm not talking beating every single
person) you'd have a different opinion? Maybe not.
> As for safety of the Republic what does the Army do? Sec of
> Defense Cohen is talking about going from 10 or so divisions to 8 and
> the two they want to stand down are heavy. So if we are going to a
> smaller active Army with a reliance on reserve components then every
> soldier becomes important because the political leadership will want to
> or need to use them. Guess I remenber what my father said about his
> experiences in WWII and how unprepared the Navy was and don't ask me for
> a threat analysis either, that's another loop.
Going to reserve backup is bullshit.
Been there, tried doing that also. I quit.
The entire year's effort was centered around getting the
vehicles prepared to survive the round trip to Drum for
the 2 week campout. Compared to RA experience,
it was a joke. I'm not blaming the people either.
You can only get so much out of people 2 days a month
and 2 weeks out of the year. If they are thinking about
shifting over to reserve, they better change the way
the Reserves are run now.
If they really *have to* stand down units and to rely
on smaller more efficient(?) units, they should transfer the
support to the elites like SF, Ranger, SEAL, Top Gun ...
or keep them constant. The experience of those units should
remain intact. Then in times of war they could provide a
dual function of doer and trainer as the numbers expanded.
I had the chance of doing business near Devens the day it was
officially shut down last year. It was real sad. You drive
off 2 past a sign with "Fort" scratched off it so it reads
only "Devens", drive right through what used to be the MP gate
and right onto a deserted base. Movie house, PX, barracks,
housing, parade grounds with a little deserted TRADOC bandstand,
all empty. Gone in a whisper. Real sad chapter being closed.
Lot of history gone. I believe they're in Colorado now.
Big Gun
>Michael wrote:
>
>> PS. as regards those early female assignees to SF units - some were jump
>> qualified but NONE had to meet the same APRT standards for physical
>> fitness as did the men. First there were two sets of standards, and then
>> when a complaint was filed on that the men's standards were lowered to
>> accomodate the women. It was more like skydiving school for them. Still
>> - they did jump and that says a lot right there, more than a lot of male
>> REMF's ever did.
>
>Never said anything of the sort Michael.
>Best to stay with your hole in the water.
>I'm sorry, I meant sailboat.
>
>************************************************************
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
> and do not reflect those of my employer.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>************************************************************
Not to put words in anyone's mouth or to interpret where it's not
needed, but this whole thing started because you made a reference to a
PBS show that was based on a study that concluded that women were
superior to men in combat.
This is a pretty bold conclusion in and of itself. But to make the
statement that I saw something like this sometime on TV on PBS maybe,
but don't remember the details, just begs for harrassment. This is the
sole bone of contention between you two that I see. Not whether women
have ever been in SF. (Hell I'm in 7th Gp and we have at least 10 ABN
qualified women at our Gp. HQ)
I would bet that this kind of study would be pretty big news
considering the current leanings or our news establishment.
"Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid"
John Wayne
Michael
> Not to put words in anyone's mouth or to interpret where it's not
> needed, but this whole thing started because you made a reference to a
> PBS show that was based on a study that concluded that women were
> superior to men in combat.
>
> This is a pretty bold conclusion in and of itself. But to make the
> statement that I saw something like this sometime on TV on PBS maybe,
> but don't remember the details, just begs for harrassment. This is the
> sole bone of contention between you two that I see. Not whether women
> have ever been in SF. (Hell I'm in 7th Gp and we have at least 10 ABN
> qualified women at our Gp. HQ)
>
> I would bet that this kind of study would be pretty big news
> considering the current leanings or our news establishment.
>
It would be news, if it existed. And if it existed everyone on active
duty would know about it and be arguing the pros and cons of it. The
absence of that discussion leads one to believe it may not exist - and
the absence of anything concrete in support furthers strengthens that
belief. But it's no bone of contention - nothing to contend yet. BS even
the $10 kind doesn't count.
So how are things on the "hill"? I'm from the pre-freeway days. I heard
they built it right through Gabriel Demonstration Area so since that was
a war memorial where did it get moved to or did they just tear it down?
Last time I was there was 1972. Went to Fort Lewis after the 1st Group
started up and ran into some old colleagues. Damn everyone looked young!
So what jobs are the women getting in group? I actually always wondered
why we could recruit, train, arm, and if necessary lead an
unconventional unit that included men and women but couldn't use our
own. Now that's a subject worthy of discussion.
SFC (retired) Michael Orton last of ODA-3 3/7th. (12B4SLA under the old
system)
Big Gun
On Tue, 08 Apr 1997 09:48:03 -0400, Doug
<dmc...@paragon-networks.com> wrote:
>************************************************************
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
> and do not reflect those of my employer.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>************************************************************
Really cool story. How 'bout you upload a scanned copy of your DD-214
so that I can verify your facts. : )
Doug
Big Gun wrote:
> Not to put words in anyone's mouth or to interpret where it's not
> needed, but this whole thing started because you made a reference to a
> PBS show that was based on a study that concluded that women were
> superior to men in combat.
You are putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing
about combat. It was a refeence to the women in training.
If you're going to misquote people, at least do it in
style.
Doug
Big Gun wrote:
> Really cool story. How 'bout you upload a scanned copy of your DD-214
> so that I can verify your facts. : )
Verify this...
This is really suspicious. Put someone's DD-214 on the
web to verify a discussion? By someone called Big Gun?
First, someone would have to be really stupid to do that.
Second, who the hell are you?
Verify a discussion on the web each time with a 214?
Give me a goddamn break.
You're goddamn paranoid.
You know what Big Gun? I have no idea who you are.
You know what? I could care less.
Doug
Rebecca Thompson wrote:
> Sorry, you're incorrect. I doubt that things have changed much since
> I was in in 1993 but here were approximations of the standards:
>
> Males Females
> Situps APPX 50 54
> Run (2 miles) 14:57 18:57
> Pushups 40+ 19
>
> I know the female stats are correct (this is the 17 to 21/22 age group
> btw) but I'm just approximating the male
Nope. Sorry Rebecca. You're misinterpreting my post.
One of the points raised here was
"do the same job, do the same test".
And as someone already pointed out, even though women were
attached to the SF, they were not qualified with the
same test as the men.
But, from what I remember, the units up at Devens had all
sorts of attached personell running around with beret that
weren't combat arms trained.
It's been a long while, but I don't remember anyone having
to do anywhere near 50 situps minimum to pass the PT test.
Anyone got the FM on this?
Big Gun
>
>
>It would be news, if it existed. And if it existed everyone on active
>duty would know about it and be arguing the pros and cons of it. The
>absence of that discussion leads one to believe it may not exist - and
>the absence of anything concrete in support furthers strengthens that
>belief. But it's no bone of contention - nothing to contend yet. BS even
>the $10 kind doesn't count.
>
>So how are things on the "hill"? I'm from the pre-freeway days. I heard
>they built it right through Gabriel Demonstration Area so since that was
>a war memorial where did it get moved to or did they just tear it down?
>Last time I was there was 1972. Went to Fort Lewis after the 1st Group
>started up and ran into some old colleagues. Damn everyone looked young!
>So what jobs are the women getting in group? I actually always wondered
>why we could recruit, train, arm, and if necessary lead an
>unconventional unit that included men and women but couldn't use our
>own. Now that's a subject worthy of discussion.
>
>SFC (retired) Michael Orton last of ODA-3 3/7th. (12B4SLA under the old
>system)
The females are in jobs like clerk, supply specialist, communications
or computer specialist. Some are airborne qualified and some are not.
We even have male support personnel who are legs that don't want to
volunteer for jump school.
For about 5 years USASOC had a Reg. that prevented women from being in
SF at all. This changed 4 or 5 years ago to the way it was in the
early 80s or late 70s allowing women back in but only at Gp level, not
in the battalions. Women are prevented form serving in any job that
might put them downrange where they have to interact directly with the
troops we are advising.
The Gabriel area is still there but little used these days. The All
American took about a third of it's land. I don't think it's
considered a war memorial these days, if so, I feel pretty stupid
because I've been on Bragg off and on for the last 15 years and never
heard it before. What used to be there as a memorial? A statue or a
plaque or anything? We have several still, for example Iron Mike. (He
recently got moved in front of the SF command building)
They haven't done a demo there for at least 10 years that I know of.
Big Gun
>Big Gun wrote:
>
>> Really cool story. How 'bout you upload a scanned copy of your DD-214
>> so that I can verify your facts. : )
>
>Verify this...
>
>This is really suspicious. Put someone's DD-214 on the
>web to verify a discussion? By someone called Big Gun?
>
>First, someone would have to be really stupid to do that.
>
>Second, who the hell are you?
>
>Verify a discussion on the web each time with a 214?
>Give me a goddamn break.
>You're goddamn paranoid.
>
>You know what Big Gun? I have no idea who you are.
>You know what? I could care less.
>
>************************************************************
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
> and do not reflect those of my employer.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>************************************************************
Don't you know a joke when you read one?
Didn't you see the cute little smiley face? It looked a little like
this: ---> : )
In "netiquette" This useally means someone thinks they're being funny.
I think you're the one being a little paranoid here.
Michael
We have several still, for example Iron Mike. (He
> recently got moved in front of the SF command building)
>
> They haven't done a demo there for at least 10 years that I know of.
>
> John Wayne
The more things change the more they . . . . change. We used to call
that statue "Bronze Bruce". Time to let the new generation take over, I
keep forgetting I'm retired.
Mike
Big Gun
On Wed, 09 Apr 1997 09:36:57 -0400, Doug
<dmc...@paragon-networks.com> wrote:
>Big Gun wrote:
>
>> Not to put words in anyone's mouth or to interpret where it's not
>> needed, but this whole thing started because you made a reference to a
>> PBS show that was based on a study that concluded that women were
>> superior to men in combat.
>
>You are putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing
>about combat. It was a refeence to the women in training.
>If you're going to misquote people, at least do it in
>style.
>
>
>************************************************************
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
> and do not reflect those of my employer.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>************************************************************
I apologize if I misquoted you but I just reread your post and got the
same thing out of it. If you didn't mean to imply anything about
combat and only training then read the following.
>Recent studies at Fort Bragg that put women through Ranger
>Training show as a group, women are far more efficient
>than men.
Ranger training is the course used in the Army to evaluate a man's
effectiveness in combat. This course is now open only to MOSs that can
be found in Ranger Regiment. If someone's a generator mechanic they
can just hang it up.
If you didn't know this and thought it is still considered a
leadership school you are a little behind the current news. In the
early 90s this course was decided to be a "combat" preparation course
and no longer a leadership course. It was publicly stated that this
was done to prevent women from attending. Many females said that if it
was a leadership course then anyone should have the opportunity to
attend; hence the change.
In the 1970s a female captain used the same legal arguement to attend
the SFQC. She didn't initially pass but the political situation was
such that she was later allowed to graduate. The Ranger Regiment was
afraid of a repeat of the same with ranger school.
I know this is probably a little more info than you asked for but I am
just trying to be informative.
Big Gun
>Rebecca Thompson wrote:
>> Sorry, you're incorrect. I doubt that things have changed much since
>> I was in in 1993 but here were approximations of the standards:
>>
>> Males Females
>> Situps APPX 50 54
>> Run (2 miles) 14:57 18:57
>> Pushups 40+ 19
>>
>> I know the female stats are correct (this is the 17 to 21/22 age group
>> btw) but I'm just approximating the male
>
>Nope. Sorry Rebecca. You're misinterpreting my post.
>
>One of the points raised here was
>
> "do the same job, do the same test".
>
>And as someone already pointed out, even though women were
>attached to the SF, they were not qualified with the
>same test as the men.
>
>But, from what I remember, the units up at Devens had all
>sorts of attached personell running around with beret that
>weren't combat arms trained.
>
>It's been a long while, but I don't remember anyone having
>to do anywhere near 50 situps minimum to pass the PT test.
>
>Anyone got the FM on this?
>
>************************************************************
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
> and do not reflect those of my employer.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>************************************************************
For males in the 18-21 year old age group they have to do 52 situps to
pass. For pushups it's up to 48 to pass.
1988 the standards were changed from 40 and 40 minimums. The run
minimum was somewhere in the 17+ minute range. The max was 69 situps
68 pushups and 13:06 for the 18-2? age group. These days to max in the
18 year age group you have to be around 90+ for pushups and situps
both with a run at about 11:30 for two miles.
If you like, tomorrow I can up the new reg number and exact times and
numbers for each event and each age group for males and females. This
is printed on the back of each PT card so I can get the info off of
mine.
In my case, I'm 35 and have to do 30 pushups 38 situps and run 18:00
to pass with a minimum score of 180. To max I have to do 70 pushups 72
situps and run a 14:00 flat. (I have THIS memorized)
Christine A. Owens
> I suppose you'd have to define "golddigger", as in how much a
> person would have to derive in terms of benefits and of what
> kind to be classified as a "golddigger" as opposed to a "friend
> of lesser contribution".
Actually, I think that the term 'golddigger' is more correctly defined by intent than
by actual financial improvement. A golddigger displays sexual interest in a person in
proportion to that person's perceived ability to improve the golddigger's standard of
living, either temporarily or permanently. There is a VAST difference between the
individual who marries [or dates] a person of perceived wealth BECAUSE of that wealth,
and one who does so because of a genuine interest in the person him/herself,
irrespective of his/her wealth.
> It would seem that if we are to assume
> that the claims that women are less financially viable for whatever
> reason that could be traced to a male power structure, at least in
> the financial world, or the fact that men earn more than women,
> that women are more likely to be golddiggers.
If that were the only portion of the equation, then probably. However, the other
portion of the equation is which gender wants wealth without effort more. Have any data
on that? I do. Look at the proportion of heiresses, of any age, in any society, who
are agressively [in some periods of history to the point of abduction and rape] courted
by men of relatively poor means. Why do you think that so many English peers of the
first generation in this century had American mothers? Why do you think that the Roman
Catholic Church made it a requirement that the bride be heard to consent, in a clear
voice, to the marriage?
Chris Owens
Doug
Big Gun wrote:
<major snippage>
> I apologize if I misquoted you but I just reread your post and got the
> same thing out of it. If you didn't mean to imply anything about
> combat and only training then read the following.
>
> >Recent studies at Fort Bragg that put women through Ranger
> >Training show as a group, women are far more efficient
> >than men.
I don't see a reference to combat here at all.
> If you didn't know this and thought it is still considered a
> leadership school you are a little behind the current news. In the
Way off. Neither said nor implied implied anything of the
sort on both counts: i.e. nothing to do with combat,
nothing to do with leadership.
You are either:
deliberately trying to force an interpretation upon
what I said to construct a straw man such as what another
poster has been doing,
or
you for some reason have continued to misread/misinterpret
in which case may be my fault.
In either case, I suggest to drop this thread since nothing
of any mutual significance it happening here and only a
continued misunderstanding will ensue.
Regards
Big Gun
On Wed, 09 Apr 1997 15:41:31 -0700, Michael <or...@cdsnet.net> wrote:
>We have several still, for example Iron Mike. (He
>> recently got moved in front of the SF command building)
>>
>> They haven't done a demo there for at least 10 years that I know of.
>>
>> "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid"
>> John Wayne
>
>The more things change the more they . . . . change. We used to call
>that statue "Bronze Bruce". Time to let the new generation take over, I
>keep forgetting I'm retired.
>
>Mike
Ooops!! My error. Iron Mike is on Main post. Bronze bruce was the one
that was moved.
Big Gun
None of the above. Just trying to explain how I interpreted combat
from your post.
Said thread is now dropped.
Colin Campbell
(Attributation unknown)
>>> >Recent studies at Fort Bragg that put women through Ranger
>>> >Training show as a group, women are far more efficient
>>> >than men.
Fort Bragg and the Ranger school have nothing to do with each other.
Ranger training is handled by TRADOC (Training and Doctrine Command)
and is conducted at Fort Benning. Fort Bragg is FORSCOM (United
States Forces Command) and SOCOM (Special Operations Command).
'Reply to' address changed to foil email spammers.
Please remove " * " if you wish to reply via email
Doug
Big Gun wrote:
> For males in the 18-21 year old age group they have to do 52 situps to
> pass. For pushups it's up to 48 to pass.
>
> 1988 the standards were changed from 40 and 40 minimums. The run
> minimum was somewhere in the 17+ minute range. The max was 69 situps
> 68 pushups and 13:06 for the 18-2? age group. These days to max in the
> 18 year age group you have to be around 90+ for pushups and situps
> both with a run at about 11:30 for two miles.
>
> If you like, tomorrow I can up the new reg number and exact times and
> numbers for each event and each age group for males and females. This
> is printed on the back of each PT card so I can get the info off of
> mine.
>
> In my case, I'm 35 and have to do 30 pushups 38 situps and run 18:00
> to pass with a minimum score of 180. To max I have to do 70 pushups 72
> situps and run a 14:00 flat. (I have THIS memorized)
If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate that. The only FM number
I have memorized from back then is 22-5 D&C.
Doug
Big Gun wrote:
> Really cool story. How 'bout you upload a scanned copy of your DD-214
> so that I can verify your facts. : )
Well, you're right. Didn't see the :)
Guess I'll have to pay for this for a while.
Big Gun
>Big Gun wrote:
>
>> For males in the 18-21 year old age group they have to do 52 situps to
>> pass. For pushups it's up to 48 to pass.
>>
>> 1988 the standards were changed from 40 and 40 minimums. The run
>> minimum was somewhere in the 17+ minute range. The max was 69 situps
>> 68 pushups and 13:06 for the 18-2? age group. These days to max in the
>> 18 year age group you have to be around 90+ for pushups and situps
>> both with a run at about 11:30 for two miles.
>>
>> If you like, tomorrow I can up the new reg number and exact times and
>> numbers for each event and each age group for males and females. This
>> is printed on the back of each PT card so I can get the info off of
>> mine.
>>
>> In my case, I'm 35 and have to do 30 pushups 38 situps and run 18:00
>> to pass with a minimum score of 180. To max I have to do 70 pushups 72
>> situps and run a 14:00 flat. (I have THIS memorized)
>
>If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate that. The only FM number
>I have memorized from back then is 22-5 D&C.
>
>************************************************************
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
> and do not reflect those of my employer.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>************************************************************
The FM is 21-20 and the PT card form number is DA FORM 705, MAY 87
The ACCURATE minimum for males 17-21 to pass is 42 pushups and 52
situps, with 15:54 for a two mile run. Females have to get 18 PU 50 SU
and run in 18:54.
Bear in mind that these are the bare essentials to pass the PT test.
Just passing is something that is frowned upon throughout the
military.
Sorry for the erroneous info I posted before, I was trying to work
from memory. (there I go again, working without the proper tools).
Nightweb
Doug wrote:
>
> Big Gun wrote:
>
> > The FM is 21-20 and the PT card form number is DA FORM 705, MAY 87
> >
> > The ACCURATE minimum for males 17-21 to pass is 42 pushups and 52
> > situps, with 15:54 for a two mile run. Females have to get 18 PU 50 SU
> > and run in 18:54.
> >
> > Bear in mind that these are the bare essentials to pass the PT test.
> > Just passing is something that is frowned upon throughout the
> > military.
>
> when I was in. We called people doing the bare min "skates"
> as well as a few other things.
>
> Now what I find interesting is the female limit is less than
> half the men for PUs but nearly the same for SUs.
>
> Using the men's standard as 100%, women are at
> 42% for PUs,
> 96% for SUs,
> Running is roughly 7.5 mph for men and 6.3 mph,
> or roughly 84% for women.
>
> So, upper body strength is significantly lower in women.
> Just dealing with documented regs here. So anything requiring
> severe upper body ability leaves women at a disadvantage.
>
> Now, when they tried to integrate some barracks I lived in
> way back when, all hell broke loose. It was not a real good
> idea.
>
> ************************************************************
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
> and do not reflect those of my employer.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> ************************************************************
I havent followed this thread at all, but I just have a question, I have
been in the air force, and know how very important upper body strength
is when you slug it out in the bush and have to move around, why should
anyone have to do less than the rest of the unit? The unit will only be
as good as its weakest link............ hmm... oh, well.. thot i were
going to ask something better but thats all I have for now.. =)
Have a good weekend!
Big Gun
I think the differences in the standards between men and women are
pretty realistic. Women have evolved to have less upper body strength
than men. They on the other hand have a supperior cardiovascular
system. Not that they can necessarily run farther or faster, it's just
that female athletes make better use of oxygen than men.
I personally think that women are an asset to the military. I just
think that because of the "male mindset" that some critical combat
units should not be integrated.
Doug
Bill Holt
Doug wrote:
>
> Big Gun wrote:
>
> > so that I can verify your facts. : )
>
> Well, you're right. Didn't see the :)
> Guess I'll have to pay for this for a while.
<<EG>> I can tell ya fer sure that you SHALL have that
opourtunity! <G> Take care!
Bill Holt
HEY NOW! Lets see what *I* can do with this here fancy tagline!
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------
The comments and opinions stated herein are SOLELY my
employers, and do not reflect those of myself.
-------------------------------------------------------
************************************************************
Self employment has its advantages.... <G>
Nightweb
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
> > and do not reflect those of my employer.
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >************************************************************
>
> I think the differences in the standards between men and women are
> pretty realistic. Women have evolved to have less upper body strength
> than men. They on the other hand have a supperior cardiovascular
> system. Not that they can necessarily run farther or faster, it's just
> that female athletes make better use of oxygen than men.
>
> I personally think that women are an asset to the military. I just
> think that because of the "male mindset" that some critical combat
> units should not be integrated.
>
> "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid"
> John Wayne
*ponder* Well, I still would like to point out that I have first hand
experience on the matter, and frankly, most women I met performed poorly
out in the field, some argued about not having enough time to put on
MAKEUP in the morning before the first line up. Oh gawd! Some even wore
makeup out in the field, resulting in eye infections, skin infections
and more.
But, the biggest problem was, when issued a order, the guys took it,
whilst alot of the women started asking questions and wondering 'why'.
Now, that might not seem as a big problem, but when someone tells you to
shoot that person, and you ask why, you just missed him, it actually
happened in basic training alot, a few still had the problem when posted
on duty.
I belive that there is a mental differnce between men and women, due to
the differences we are all brought up, not everyone is subject to this
however, but alot are. If women should be in any army, they should be
treated just the same as men, as the guidelines laid out are usually
well tested, and produce fit soldiers that are able to carry out their
orders and perform without too many doubts.
War is about killing, soldiers should be prepared to kill, thats hard,
very hard, and if someone wants to join just to prove that women can be
as good soldiers as men, they are in the wrong line of duty.
Oh, well, just some more nonsense posted by me!
Have a nice weekend ya all!
^OnE MaN^
N
Wonder what is to be thought on women in the Israeli Army.
Doug
Big Gun wrote:
> I think the differences in the standards between men and women are
> pretty realistic. Women have evolved to have less upper body strength
> than men. They on the other hand have a supperior cardiovascular
> system. Not that they can necessarily run farther or faster, it's just
> that female athletes make better use of oxygen than men.
>
> I personally think that women are an asset to the military. I just
> think that because of the "male mindset" that some critical combat
> units should not be integrated.
Well, for the physical ability side of things, I've heard
this argument. Boys in their upbringing are encouraged gross
muscle rough and tumble/competitive things to do. Girls are
moved towards social/fine motor skills. Until society changes
this type of mindset, trying to change people raised in such
an environment when they are 18, 19, etc... years old will
be very difficult, but not impossible.
Things are changing though. A follow worker who runs to
no end when he can, says by the year 2000, the 2 hour
marathon will be broken. They just don't know who's going
to do it - a man or a women. In other words, the change that
everyone is looking for is happening now with what children
are exposed to today. It will be years to see what happens.
So here we are stuck in a very slow changing way of things.
I personally had no problem working with women while I was
in the military. But there was a difference with how we all
were tested and trained. The fact there was a difference
based on whatever "facts" one may want to use (usually some
personal observation) only convinced me of a lack of
experience and/or exposure to the stuff we as boys
were encouraged to do.
I saw units way back when that were integrated with women
when where they had none before. It was a mess on the men's
side. They acted like little puppies. The first night the
women moved into our barracks, we had two guys break bones
from falling off the side of the building by trying to climb
up to the women's windows. And as another poster said about
this a while back, no matter who you want to "blame" or what
facts you want to use, the problem boils down to sex.
And instincts are alot stronger than mere facts.
If we want women in combat, it's going to take a while.
Big Gun
I'm in total agreement...
Blair Zajac
In article <334eabb8...@news.pipeline.com>, big...@mailmasher.com
(Big Gun) wrote:
snip of stuff not relevant to my posting
>
> I think the differences in the standards between men and women are
> pretty realistic. Women have evolved to have less upper body strength
> than men. They on the other hand have a supperior cardiovascular
> system. Not that they can necessarily run farther or faster, it's just
> that female athletes make better use of oxygen than men.
>
> I personally think that women are an asset to the military. I just
> think that because of the "male mindset" that some critical combat
> units should not be integrated.
>
>
If you ever watch distance running either at a high school or college
level, you will see that with few exceptions, that the males run the same
distance faster than the females.
So, why is it relevant to the military that females make better use of
oxygen than males? It isn't the case that the difference is orders of
magnitude.
It is also not a matter of "male mindset" that women are not accepted in
full combat roles. It is a matter that most women are not up to the same
physical standard as men. Thus, the women are not able to 'pull their full
weight' in such a role. It is nice in intermural sports to have coed teams,
but in fighting, the coed team is weaker than an all male team.
--
Life styles are like a pendulum. They spend most of their time at extremes.
(BZ author)
Blair Zajac
bza...@isomedia.com
Big Gun
I agree with you. I don't believe that women should be in combat units
but for different reasons. My reasons have to do with the inevitable
social interaction and the biological mating urge. This is
unchangeable and uncontrollable. I've said it before; you can't just
fight hormones.
Strictly 'physically' speaking if there was a woman that could meet
the standards required for males there should be no reason to prohibit
her other than those mentioned above.
Big Gun
On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:59:19 -0700, "Christine A. Owens"
<cao...@vivanet.com> wrote:
>Odd, then, isn't it, that women are participating in every walk of life; and they, and
>the men around them, seem to be able to control the mating urge.
>
>Chris Owens
No, considering at the end or their day they just go home. At the end
of our day aur troops all go home to the same place, live in the same
bldg, and spend nearly 24hrs a day together.
Also in the civilian world people are having sex in all walks of life
as well. Sex between members of the same unit in the military is
usually prohibited. This causes too many problems to deal with.
Christine A. Owens
> I agree with you. I don't believe that women should be in combat units
> but for different reasons. My reasons have to do with the inevitable
> social interaction and the biological mating urge. This is
> unchangeable and uncontrollable. I've said it before; you can't just
> fight hormones.
Odd, then, isn't it, that women are participating in every walk of life; and they, and
James Buster
In article <look-ya02408000R...@news.isomedia.com>,
Blair Zajac <lo...@my.signature.com> wrote:
>If you ever watch distance running either at a high school or college
>level, you will see that with few exceptions, that the males run the same
>distance faster than the females.
Mile WR, men: 3:44.39
Mile WR, women: 4:12.56
Marathon WR, men: 2:06:50
Marathon WR, women: 2:21:06
>So, why is it relevant to the military that females make better use of
>oxygen than males? It isn't the case that the difference is orders of
>magnitude.
It isn't relevant, because it's not true. Men have larger hearts and
larger lungs, which lets them process more oxygen per unit time. A
man's blood has a significantly higher hemoglobin count, which binds
more oxygen per milliliter. The poster who claimed that women have
higher cardiovascular capacity than men is a idiot.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
James Buster
In article <334FAC...@paragon-networks.com>,
Doug <dmc...@paragon-networks.com> wrote:
>Things are changing though. A follow worker who runs to
>no end when he can, says by the year 2000, the 2 hour
>marathon will be broken. They just don't know who's going
>to do it - a man or a women.
It won't be a woman. The difference in the current men's & women's
marathon records is 14 minutes, 2:06:50 vs 2:21:06. Do you really
think elite female marathoners are going to improve the WR by
21 minutes before elite men improve the WR by 7 minutes? Get a
clue.
Your friend's confusion comes from looking at 1970s improvement
rates in women's times. The truth is, elite female athletes are
as good as they are going to get. Their training methods are
the equal of any man. Their improvement slope is now as flat as
men's.
Big Gun
On 16 Apr 1997 00:20:07 GMT, bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster)
wrote:
>In article <look-ya02408000R...@news.isomedia.com>,
>Blair Zajac <lo...@my.signature.com> wrote:
>>If you ever watch distance running either at a high school or college
>>level, you will see that with few exceptions, that the males run the same
>>distance faster than the females.
>
>Mile WR, men: 3:44.39
>Mile WR, women: 4:12.56
>
>Marathon WR, men: 2:06:50
>Marathon WR, women: 2:21:06
>
>>So, why is it relevant to the military that females make better use of
>>oxygen than males? It isn't the case that the difference is orders of
>>magnitude.
>
>It isn't relevant, because it's not true. Men have larger hearts and
>larger lungs, which lets them process more oxygen per unit time. A
>man's blood has a significantly higher hemoglobin count, which binds
>more oxygen per milliliter. The poster who claimed that women have
>higher cardiovascular capacity than men is a idiot.
>--
>Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
>atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
>much like Earth.
If I posted incorrectly I admit to being an idiot. I just thought I
remembered reading that somewhere.
Go ahead, flame away, I didn't check my facts.
Christine A. Owens
Nightweb wrote:
>
> Christine A. Owens wrote:
> >
> > 1..@..9 wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:33:52 -0700, "Christine A. Owens" <cao...@vivanet.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> It's as relevant as thinking that a woman in prison, because she shot and killed
> > > >> her husband while he slept, would make a good soldier.
> > > >
> > > >You know, your reading comprehension could use some improvement. The original poster
> > > >stated that women were not capable of killing in cold blood. The fact that women are in
> > > >prison for killing in cold blood obviously invalidates that observation. It does not,
> > > >in any fashion, suggest that women in prison for killing in cold blood would make good
> > > >soldiers.
> > > >
> > > >Chris Owens
> > >
> > > Good soldiers must be able to kill in cold blood.
> > > Some women are in prison for killing in cold blood.
> > > Women who are in prison for killing in cold blood would make good soldiers.
> > >
> > > It's called female logic...it used to validate what ever you =want= to validate.
> > > But then you already knew that. Didn't you?
> >
> > You know, YOUR reading comprehension is even worse. Try this:
> >
> > Hypothesis: Women should not be soldiers because soldiers must be able to kill in cold
> > blood, and women cannot.
> >
> > Premise 1: Soldiers must be able to kill in cold blood.
> > Premise 2: Women cannot kill in cold blood.
> >
> > Datum: There are women in prison who have killed in cold blood; therefore, Premise 2
> > is invalid.
> >
> > If either of the premises in the hypothesis is invalid, then the hypothesis fails.
> > Since Premise 2 is invalid, the hypothesis fails.
> >
> > Now, please explain where this states that women who are in prison for killing in cold
> > blood would make good soldiers.
> >
> > Chris Owens
>
> Using people who are in prison for something is hardly a good way to
> make a statement since they most likely cant do what you are writing
> about in the first place, ergo, stating that women can kill in cold
> blood AND be good soldiers has nothing to do with the fact that there
> are some murderers sitting in prison right now. They most likely are a
> bit mentally unstable, and what kinda soldier would they make?
DO YOU EVER ACTUALLY ***READ*** WHAT PEOPLE WRITE?!?!
1. I DID NOT state that people in prison would make good soldiers.
2. I DID state that the assertion that 'women would not make good soldiers because they
are incapable of killing in cold blood' is false because there are women in prison for
killing in cold blood. Ergo, one of the premises [women can't kill in cold blood] of
the assertion is false, so the entire assertion is false. It is simple logic:
You have the following sets: [a] women, [b] good soldiers, [c] people who can kill in
cold blood. Now, the original poster contented that b was a wholly-contained subset of
c, and that a and c did not intersect. Since a and c DO intersect, it is not possible
to conclude from the available data whether or not a and b also intersect; so the
original statement is false.
Chris Owens
>
> Have a nice day!
Christine A. Owens
Big Gun wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:59:19 -0700, "Christine A. Owens"
> <cao...@vivanet.com> wrote:
>
> >Odd, then, isn't it, that women are participating in every walk of life; and they, and
> >the men around them, seem to be able to control the mating urge.
> >
> >Chris Owens
>
> of our day aur troops all go home to the same place, live in the same
> bldg, and spend nearly 24hrs a day together.
Not after basic, they don't, except by choice.
>
> Also in the civilian world people are having sex in all walks of life
> as well. Sex between members of the same unit in the military is
> usually prohibited. This causes too many problems to deal with.
Yes it does. It causes the same problems in commercial life, which is why
'fraternizing' with fellow employees is also frowned on. And which is why people
invented social lives.
Chris Owens
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <3353eefe...@news.pipeline.com> big...@pipeline.com (Big Gun)
writes:
>On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:59:19 -0700, "Christine A. Owens"
><cao...@vivanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Odd, then, isn't it, that women are participating in every walk of
life; and they, and
>>the men around them, seem to be able to control the mating urge.
>>
>>Chris Owens
>
>
>No, considering at the end or their day they just go home. At the end
>of our day aur troops all go home to the same place, live in the same
>bldg, and spend nearly 24hrs a day together.
>
>as well. Sex between members of the same unit in the military is
>usually prohibited. This causes too many problems to deal with.
-------
Having "too many problems to deal with" is not sufficient
to deny equal protection. It has been addressed before in
other caselaw; equal protection in combat duty is only a
matter of time. Military personnel will learn to deal with
it the same way they will have to learn to deal with other
problems intrinsic in issues of equality.
Lefty
Doug
James Buster wrote:
>
> In article <334FAC...@paragon-networks.com>,
> Doug <dmc...@paragon-networks.com> wrote:
> >Things are changing though. A follow worker who runs to
> >no end when he can, says by the year 2000, the 2 hour
> >marathon will be broken. They just don't know who's going
> >to do it - a man or a women.
>
> It won't be a woman. The difference in the current men's & women's
> marathon records is 14 minutes, 2:06:50 vs 2:21:06. Do you really
> think elite female marathoners are going to improve the WR by
> 21 minutes before elite men improve the WR by 7 minutes? Get a
> clue.
>
> Your friend's confusion comes from looking at 1970s improvement
> rates in women's times. The truth is, elite female athletes are
> as good as they are going to get. Their training methods are
> the equal of any man. Their improvement slope is now as flat as
> men's.
My own opinion is that the Nigerians will break the record
before anyone else. They seem to be flooding the run circuit
lately.
And that improvement slope is now what?
William L Pora
In <3353eefe...@news.pipeline.com> big...@pipeline.com (Big Gun)
writes:
>
>On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:59:19 -0700, "Christine A. Owens"
><cao...@vivanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Odd, then, isn't it, that women are participating in every walk of
life; and they, and
>>the men around them, seem to be able to control the mating urge.
>>
>>Chris Owens
>
>
>No, considering at the end or their day they just go home. At the end
>of our day aur troops all go home to the same place, live in the same
>bldg, and spend nearly 24hrs a day together.
>
>Also in the civilian world people are having sex in all walks of life
>as well. Sex between members of the same unit in the military is
>usually prohibited. This causes too many problems to deal with.
>
>
>
>
>
>John Wayne
Oh No! Not this thread again!
Now see that's why i stopped reading alt.war. This is one of those
issues that'll keep on coming back over and over again and just won't
solve.
A few months ago i succesfully argued my way to a draw on this issue.
In other words we were so tired of responding to threads we just quit.
To those of you who think women should be in combat units do you really
think a few newsgroup posts are going to change everything? This is
one of those keystone issues upon which western civilization is based
upon. Is it fair? Is it equitable? No. Should capable women be able
to do whatever they can in whatever field? yes. Should they be allowed
in combat units? No. See that's the type of mindset you'll encounter.
And no matter how many posts you put up it won't change their minds
overnight (or probably at all). And neither will this issue go away
for probably the next 50 or so years, so get set for a long running
debate.
To those who don't think women should be allowed in combat. The other
side is not interested in tradition, they are not interested in what
may be practical, they are not interested in what works. They are
interested in social justice, they are interested in equity, they are
interested in the empowerment of women. Is it practical to put all
women in combat units? Probably not. Would physical requirements for
infantry and combat troops be lowered to accomodate women? Possibly.
Is any of this important? No, women should be allowed to enter any
branch of the service no matter what. That is their mindset, and you
won't change it either. To them its a matter of justice overall, never
mind if the machine's not broken we'll fix it anyways. As before i
advise you they won't give up easily so prepare for a long drawn out
debate.
To both sides, this is a complex issue, that won't solve. One or two
posts on the internet won't solve it. Let politicians, lawyers or
whatever ultimately solve it (as they will, whether will like it or
not). Many of your discussions degenerate into mud slinging. Arguing
not to prove your point but just to not agree. So unless you've got
something new to contribute please move on to something new.
Big Gun
On 17 Apr 1997 13:20:25 GMT, wp...@ix.netcom.com(William L Pora)
wrote:
Debate is a legitimate pastime for many people. On this issue I'm
totally neutral and have debated on both sides of it. There is nothing
that is going to be said that will change anything on any subject that
we could discuss in any USENET newsgroup. Most people that argue these
type of subjects just enjoy debate with other people.
Myself included.
bill holloway
William L Pora wrote:
snipped>
> To both sides, this is a complex issue, that won't solve. One or two
> posts on the internet won't solve it. Let politicians, lawyers or
> whatever ultimately solve it (as they will, whether will like it or
> not). Many of your discussions degenerate into mud slinging. Arguing
> not to prove your point but just to not agree. So unless you've got
> something new to contribute please move on to something new.
William, smartest post I have read here. This will only be solved by
reality. When the women are carried out of the fields with a lot of
body parts missing and shipped back state-side where mothers will see
them. Then and only then will enough pressure be put on Congress to
get them out of combat. It is a shame that a lot of male's and female's
will die on the field because of the inability of women to perform to
the level that is required. So let them in and let them do their little
parading around in uniform till the clock actually strikes 12.
Bill
--
Ahhshelee
Christine Owens needs to buy herself a porta potty and sit and ponder what
comes out of her butt.
_*The Navigator*_
JJ wrote:
>
> Ahhshelee wrote:
> >
> > Christine Owens needs to buy herself a porta potty and sit and ponder what
> > comes out of her butt.
>
> everyone's butt, a disgusting substance called Ahhshelee.
************************************************************
Most Excellent, Response..
john.
************************************************************
NH
Bill Holt wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
> >
> > Big Gun wrote:
> >
> > > Really cool story. How 'bout you upload a scanned copy of your DD-214
> > > so that I can verify your facts. : )
> >
> > Well, you're right. Didn't see the :)
> > Guess I'll have to pay for this for a while.
>
> <<EG>> I can tell ya fer sure that you SHALL have that
> opourtunity! <G> Take care!
>
> Bill Holt
>
> HEY NOW! Lets see what *I* can do with this here fancy tagline!
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The comments and opinions stated herein are SOLELY my
> employers, and do not reflect those of myself.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> ************************************************************
>
> Self employment has its advantages.... <G>
ro...@netvision.net
First William change will come only after a public interest and public
discussion and the internet is a good place to start
The Factor if women or men can or cann't perform in combat is more
the quality / character of an individual than if soldier is a man or
a woman.
in history there was alot of figths that women was in and thay proformed
like any other soldier.
most of people are not fit for combat so won't it be beter if the men
and women that are fit the figth in modern combat field will be in
combat and the rest will be back home holding the economy(that is a
majer factor in modern war) then sending only men if thay are fit to
combat or not.
today in alot of the western countries that the U.S.A is one of them,
there are enough people and money that you can send only men that are
fit to combat and that is enough to win the war, so in case like that
the people of the country can determine depending on people point of
view.
yohanan
GINA SOUSAN
ws.pipeline.com> <334E90...@paragon-networks.com>
<334eabb8...@news.pipeline.com> <look-ya02408000R...@news.isomedia.com> <33521805...@news.pipeline.com> <3353D0...@vivanet.com> <3353eefe...@news.pipeline.com> <5j582p$1:
i...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <3356D8...@flash.net>
Distribution:
bill holloway (holl...@flash.net) wrote:
: William, smartest post I have read here. This will only be solved by
: reality. When the women are carried out of the fields with a lot of
: body parts missing and shipped back state-side where mothers will see
: them. Then and only then will enough pressure be put on Congress to
: get them out of combat.
If bodies of 18-year-old boys coming back from war "with a lot of body
parts missing" didn't stop war, then what makes you think it would stop
if the bodies were women? Is it really so much sadder when a woman dies
in combat instead of a man?
It is a shame that a lot of male's and female's
: will die on the field because of the inability of women to perform to
: the level that is required. So let them in and let them do their little
: parading around in uniform till the clock actually strikes 12.
: Bill
: --
That is quite a stretch your making. I suppose it is ONLY the fact of
women in combat that causes our soldiers to die on the field. You know,
women weren't in combat during the Vietnam War, but a lot of our soldiers
were killed and we even lost that war. But, I am sure that people like
you can find SOME way to blame that on women.
When I was deployed for Desert Storm, I was 1 out of 2 people sent from
my shop. Do you know why I was sent? Because I was single and did not
have any children. I was the only female in the shop, but the married
guys did not want to leave their families.
Basically, Bill, women can be an asset to combat. It is just too bad
that women who want to be in combat have to face opposition from
uneducated people like you only because of their gender.
Gina
Shea
GINA SOUSAN wrote:
(stuff about women being an asset in combat)
Gina,
While I agree with the view that women are an asset to militaries the
world over I have a serious problem with women being in the combat
arms. While women may be an asset in a combat situation as you proclaim
I feel that their presence in a combat unit would only undermine the
effectiveness of that unit and nullify any benefit. This is partly due
to the physical differences between the genders most mostly due to the
physcological impact women would have on an all male unit.
The decline in the effectiveness caused by the introduction of women
can, in no way, be justified simply because females wish to be thought
of as being just as capable as men. Women are better at some things as
are men but trying to make _people_ feel better about themselves is not
the job of the military.
--
Shea Medlicott
Cdt SF, COARNG
To reply via email-
psi...@ix.netcom.com
bammer
Tell me again, Gina about your non combat experience.
Explain to us all what its like to be in an A.F.
"shop".
Equate that to launching bullets, and having them launched
at you.
The fact is, (and we HAVE been over this) if anyone is
"uneducated" as you put it, it is you. For GOD knows,
the EXPERIENCES of those who oppose you and your ideas
are MEANINGLESS in the face of YOUR *SUPERIOR* kmowledge
about ground combat, or ground combat forces.
(sarcasm switch now in the off position.)
--
(Take out spammer foil ("*") to reply on email)
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (Blackhorse) - C.W.L.# 11D30
_____ ___ __ ________ _________
___::|/::/*/::\*\______*\*________/
|::::::::\/:/\:\/::/***\/*|:::_/___
|ka...@e-z.net:::\::\__|:::/::::::::\*"Will*to*a*higher*honor"
|____|\_::/_/\__:\_____::/|______::/
********\/******\/*****\/********\/
G E T O U R T R O O P S O U T O F B O S N I A N O W!
3.1 GG d(-)@>+ s(+):>++ a+ C+(++)$ U W(+)$>++ N++(++)$ K--?
w+(+)$ !O PS(+)$P E(++)$>+ !PGP t(+)@> 5+()@ !X !R tv(-)@>+
b++$ DI++(+) D(+)@ G e-(++)>+++ h(-)@ r* y++++(+)
GINA SOUSAN
bammer (ka...@e-z.net) wrote:
: Tell me again, Gina about your non combat experience.
You are right, I do not have any combat experience. So, I guess I cannot
have an opinion.
: Explain to us all what its like to be in an A.F.
: "shop".
: Equate that to launching bullets, and having them launched
: at you.
"Launching" bullets? Oh yeah, I can tell that you are infinitely more
experienced than I am.
: The fact is, (and we HAVE been over this) if anyone is
: "uneducated" as you put it, it is you. For GOD knows,
: the EXPERIENCES of those who oppose you and your ideas
: are MEANINGLESS in the face of YOUR *SUPERIOR* kmowledge
: about ground combat, or ground combat forces.
Kage, I laugh at your futile attempts to insult me. In your post all you
have done is hurl pubescent insults at me. The issue is NOT my
experience in combat, but whether or not women should be in combat.
Instead of trying to attack me on the issue, you decided to attack me
personally. That is a "cute" tactic and it is called an ad hominem. You
have just lost the debate.
BTW, what EXACTLY is your experience again?
Gina
GINA SOUSAN
Shea (psiwave*@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Gina,
: While I agree with the view that women are an asset to militaries the
: world over I have a serious problem with women being in the combat
: arms. While women may be an asset in a combat situation as you proclaim
: I feel that their presence in a combat unit would only undermine the
: effectiveness of that unit and nullify any benefit.
How? I really do not understand this way of thinking. If a person is
fit for combat, then THAT should be the determining factor. How could a
woman undermine the effectiveness of an entire unit. No, I am not being
sarcastic, I really want to understand your perspective. Could you be
more specific?
This is partly due
: to the physical differences between the genders most mostly due to the
: physcological impact women would have on an all male unit.
: The decline in the effectiveness caused by the introduction of women
: can, in no way, be justified simply because females wish to be thought
: of as being just as capable as men. Women are better at some things as
: are men but trying to make _people_ feel better about themselves is not
: the job of the military.
:
: --
: Shea Medlicott
: Cdt SF, COARNG
Shea, I am NOT insinuating that women should be put in combat just to
make themselves "feel better". If a person is fit for combat and
surpasses the (realistic) standards, then why should they be denied
combat duty? This makes as much sense to me as denying people the right
to vote because of the color of their skin.
You, on the other hand, are insinuating that men are absoloutely better
than women at combat. There is no way you can make that generalization
without succumbing to social stereotypes. Not ALL men are stronger than
ALL women. THAT is a fact. And, as long as that stays a fact, women
should be given a chance to compete for combat duty.
Furthermore, I doubt that women that want to be in combat are striving to
prove some point. Is it really so hard to believe that there are women
who love this country enough to defend it with their lives?
Gina
Shea
Gina,
First, I did not say that all men are stronger, smarter, faster, etc.
than women. I merely stated that their introduction into an all male
combat unit would be disruptive and lower the effectiveness of said
unit. This is caused mainly by the way men "deal" with women and the
tendency of both sexes to "indulge their passions". This _fact_ would
greatly reduce the ability of that unit to perform as an effective
force. Like it or not most people, both men and women, lack control of
their libidos.
Second, what in your opinion are "realistic" standards to set for
combat duty? Let me try to give you an example. War load for your
standard infantry grunt consists of basic equipment (LBE, Rucksack,
sleeping bag, E-tool, 4 qts of water, etc), rifle and ammo, ammo for the
platoon MG's, usually a M136 (disposable AT rocket), maybe a couple of
claymores, rations for up to 5 days and possibly spare batteries for the
radios. This usually weighs in the neighborhood of 100-120 lbs. This
is close to, if not more than, 100% of a females body weight. Now you
have to road march this 12mi (we did a 12mi road march every week) and
at the end assault an enemy position. Just to add to the mix throw in a
average field cycle of 30-60 days and things become even more
aggrevated.
I do not believe nor did I say that women love their country less than
their male counterparts. However, if you feel twisting my words around
will make me succum to your way of thinking.....
--
Shea Medlicott
Cdt SF, COARNG
To reply via email-
psi...@ix.netcom.com
John Dyson
Shea <psiwave*@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<336326...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Gina,
> First, I did not say that all men are stronger, smarter, faster, etc.
> than women. I merely stated that their introduction into an all male
> combat unit would be disruptive and lower the effectiveness of said
> unit. This is caused mainly by the way men "deal" with women and the
> tendency of both sexes to "indulge their passions". This _fact_ would
> greatly reduce the ability of that unit to perform as an effective
> force. Like it or not most people, both men and women, lack control of
> their libidos.
This is absolutely RIGHT ON THE MONEY! I am active duty, and I can
honestly say that woman in the military has decreased the efficiency and
power of the U.S. military. This is because of 2 things:
1-Women are naturally NOT as strong as men. There was a GREAT
newscast/interview on CSPAN live yesterday about this exact topic. During
that newscast, it was shown that it is proven (statistically and medically)
that women are not the same (physically) as men. When the average woman is
at her absolute best, she is only at the average man's norm, or mean
(average). If that offends somebody out there, I can only say be mature
and adult and don't be so easily offended. I didn't write the
book...you'll have to talk to Mother Nature.
It was also noted during yesterday's broadcast that when woman couldn't
'make the grade' to be qualified, the definition of 'qualified' was lowered
to ensure that woman could make it. Instead of requiring 2 people to carry
a litter with 140 pound body (which most women could not do), the
requirement was changed to have 4-people carry the litter. A perfect
example.
I can only say that, if you haven't seen it, you should definitely catch
this informative interview. On of the members of the panel was the
President of the Military Readiness Center (which is a woman, by the way).
2-Shea brings up a good point about the 'libido' of those serving. How can
you possibly expect to put a lot of 'young' people in close quarters for
long periods of time, and not expect problems? Woman in the service are
1/100, and they LOVE the 'smorgasboard' of manhood! The woman is suddenly
'Miss Popular,' and this immediately starts to create problems. I'm not
saying the the woman or the man is the one at fault...I'm saying that the
'situation' creates a huge problem. The next thing you know, we have
fratenization and adultery problems all over the place, and the knowledge
and focus on these problems detracts from the readiness and capability of
the fighting force.
--John
jrd...@pipeline.com
http://www.pipeline.com/~jrdyson
bammer
GINA SOUSAN wrote:
>
> bammer (ka...@e-z.net) wrote:
> : Tell me again, Gina about your non combat experience.
>
> You are right, I do not have any combat experience. So, I guess I
> cannot have an opinion.
Of COURSE you can have an "opinion." As long as you acknowledge that
it IS such; that it is based SOLEY on what you FEEL, as opposed to
what the FACTS are.
You can have any opinion you like.
But I would remind you of your last post, in which you refered to
the last person (of the many) who disagree with you by saying:
"It is just too bad that women who want to be in combat
have to face opposition from uneducated people like you
only because of their gender."
You must be blind if you can't appreciate the irony of your position
in THIS post ("So, I guess I cannot have an opinion") with YOUR ad
hominem quoted above.
In arguing based on how you FEEL, instead of FACTS, you do nothing
to further your position, and instead, you damage it by providing
fodder for those who believe women to act too often on their feelings...
> : Explain to us all what its like to be in an A.F.
> : "shop".
>
> : Equate that to launching bullets, and having them launched
> : at you.
>
> "Launching" bullets? Oh yeah, I can tell that you are infinitely more
> experienced than I am.
Good. At least you acknowledge it.
>
> : The fact is, (and we HAVE been over this) if anyone is
> : "uneducated" as you put it, it is you. For GOD knows,
> : the EXPERIENCES of those who oppose you and your ideas
> : are MEANINGLESS in the face of YOUR *SUPERIOR* kmowledge
> : about ground combat, or ground combat forces.
>
> Kage, I laugh at your futile attempts to insult me.
How can you consider the above to be an insult when it is
true? If you find the truth insulting, then I feel sorry
for you.
> In your post all you
> have done is hurl pubescent insults at me.
Excuse me? I state a fact: you have NO experience or
training in combat arms; limited to no experience in
maneuver units and certainly no combat experience.
How you can consider any of these truths to be either
pubescent or insulting is, I freely admit, beyond me.
> The issue is NOT my
> experience in combat, but whether or not women should be in combat.
Actually, I see the issue as one of wondering what BASIS
you use in the formation of your opinions.
IF you had spent time in combat arms; been shot at deliberately
as part of your job; shot at someone else as part of your job;
then I would give your opinions some credibility.
Since you have done none of those, what you are presenting us
with is truly nothing more then how Gina "feels" things should be.
Frankly, your opinions have no greater value then my 11 y.o. son's
ideas on the subject.
> Instead of trying to attack me on the issue, you decided to attack me
> personally.
Of course. Asking you about your experiences in the subject that you
seem to think you are an expert on certainly qualifies as a personal
attack.
Pointing out that you have NO real knowledge of which you speak is
absolutely an attack.
> That is a "cute" tactic and it is called an ad hominem.
Unless, of course, the observations are accurate, as mine were.
Then it is called making you out to be a childish fool.
> You have just lost the debate.
>
Certainly. Gina says it, so it must be true.
But you will allow me to say, "I don't think so," won't you?
> BTW, what EXACTLY is your experience again?
>
You mean you didnt copy it for your files the first time?
Too bad.
Suffice it to say that in the 9 years I spent in
Combat Arms, (enlisted) and the five years I spent
in administrative (mixed gender) units (as an officer)....
I PROBABLY got a little bigger clue then you did.
> Gina
There. That didn't hurt much, now did it?
GINA SOUSAN
bammer (ka...@e-z.net) wrote:
: GINA SOUSAN wrote:
: >
: Of COURSE you can have an "opinion." As long as you acknowledge that
: it IS such; that it is based SOLEY on what you FEEL, as opposed to
: what the FACTS are.
: You can have any opinion you like.
Now, that I have your permission, I feel soooo much better! It is NOT a
matter of just how I feel, but what is logical and factual.
What about your position? Isn't that based on how you FEEL, as opposed to
what the facts really are?
: But I would remind you of your last post, in which you refered to
: the last person (of the many) who disagree with you by saying:
: "It is just too bad that women who want to be in combat
: have to face opposition from uneducated people like you
: only because of their gender."
"Uneducated" in this context means uneducated to the abilities of women,
NOT uneducated in combat. This is not an ad hominem, because I am not
attacking the person.
: In arguing based on how you FEEL, instead of FACTS, you do nothing
: to further your position, and instead, you damage it by providing
: fodder for those who believe women to act too often on their feelings...
Again, I am NOT arguing just based on how I feel. The facts are: 1) All
men are allowed to compete for combat training. 2) Not all men are
stronger than all women. 3) There is no evidence to support the idea
that women would be detrimental to unit cohesiveness. 4) Women have
already proven themselves in battle.
: How can you consider the above to be an insult when it is
: true? If you find the truth insulting, then I feel sorry
: for you.
It was insulting because of the sarcastic nature of your post. There was
no reason for it.
: > The issue is NOT my
: > experience in combat, but whether or not women should be in combat.
: Actually, I see the issue as one of wondering what BASIS
: you use in the formation of your opinions.
The basis is on the facts I have outlined above. What are the facts that
you have based your opinions. You have yet to clarify.
: IF you had spent
time in combat arms; been shot at deliberately
: as part of your job; shot at someone else as part of your job;
: then I would give your opinions some credibility.
So, I suppose that since you are not a woman, than you have no
credibility as far as the issue of women in combat is concerned. Don't
you see, Kage, it would not matter to you. You would STILL have some
objection to my opinion. What if I was in a combat unit? What would
your argument be, then?
: Since you have done none of those, what you are
presenting us
: with is truly nothing more then how Gina "feels" things should be.
No, it is not just a matter of how I "feel". Any opinion, yes, even
yours, is partially based on feelings. But, mine is cemented with
facts. While, your perspective is STILL based on your feelings.
: Of course. Asking you about your experiences in the subject that you
: seem to think you are an expert on certainly qualifies as a personal
: attack.
I NEVER claimed to be an expert on combat! You made that assumption on
your own. Please, tell me in ONE post where I ever mentioned being
trained in or had experience in combat!
: Pointing out that you have NO real knowledge of which you speak is
: absolutely an attack.
Wait a minute! I am not speaking about combat. Don't you pay attention?
I am attacking the idea of women being banned from combat based on their
gender.
: > That is a "cute" tactic and it is called an ad hominem.
: Unless, of course, the observations are accurate, as mine were.
So, you admit it was a personal attack?
: > BTW, what EXACTLY is your experience again?
: >
: You mean you didnt copy it for your files the first time?
: Too bad.
: Suffice it to say that in the 9 years I spent in
: Combat Arms, (enlisted) and the five years I spent
: in administrative (mixed gender) units (as an officer)....
: I PROBABLY got a little bigger clue then you did.
As usual, you have skirted the question. Have you ever been in an actual
combat situation? I have read of your Combat Arms training, but have you
ever had to use it outside of wargames? What years were you enlisted?
Gina
GINA SOUSAN
Shea (psiwave*@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Gina,
: First, I did not say that all men are stronger, smarter, faster, etc.
: than women. I merely stated that their introduction into an all male
: combat unit would be disruptive and lower the effectiveness of said
: unit. This is caused mainly by the way men "deal" with women and the
: tendency of both sexes to "indulge their passions". This _fact_ would
: greatly reduce the ability of that unit to perform as an effective
: force. Like it or not most people, both men and women, lack control of
: their libidos.
How can you support the idea of penalizing women for how a man "deals"
with a woman? You have just admitted that men also lack this control.
So, is it fair to keep women out of combat just for this reason? The
amount of men and women who "indulge their passions" is the minority, not
the majority. I doubt when the s*** hits the fan, our troops will be too
busy in their tents "indulging their passions". I don't know about you,
but if I am being attacked by an advancing enemy, then sex would be the
LAST thing I would be desiring.
: Second, what in your opinion are "realistic" standards to
set for
: combat duty?
I mean if the job requires a person to carry 150lbs for 20 miles, then
that should be the ONLY standards. Standards should not be lowered to
accomodate weaker individuals. It would be unfair to the other soldiers
who have to carry the weaker person's share.
: I do not believe nor did I say that women love their country less than
: their male counterparts. However, if you feel twisting my words around
: will make me succum to your way of thinking.....
Shea, I am not "twisting your words". That is how your post came across
to me. I do not want you to succumb to my way of thinking. Your way of
thinking is illogical to me, so I am trying to understand "the other side".
Gina
Stilt Man
In article <336326...@ix.netcom.com>, Shea <psiwave*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> First, I did not say that all men are stronger, smarter, faster, etc.
>than women. I merely stated that their introduction into an all male
>combat unit would be disruptive and lower the effectiveness of said
>unit. This is caused mainly by the way men "deal" with women and the
>tendency of both sexes to "indulge their passions". This _fact_ would
>greatly reduce the ability of that unit to perform as an effective
>force. Like it or not most people, both men and women, lack control of
>their libidos.
Pitiful argument. This assumes the supremely egotistical idea that the
women in a combat unit are automatically going to find the men irresistibly
attractive, simply as a "lack of control" thing.
Just because you can't keep it in your pants doesn't mean the women can't,
either.
> Second, what in your opinion are "realistic" standards to set for
>combat duty? Let me try to give you an example. War load for your
>standard infantry grunt consists of basic equipment (LBE, Rucksack,
>sleeping bag, E-tool, 4 qts of water, etc), rifle and ammo, ammo for the
>platoon MG's, usually a M136 (disposable AT rocket), maybe a couple of
>claymores, rations for up to 5 days and possibly spare batteries for the
>radios.
Um . . . excuse me, but all infantry folks do not carry anti-tank weaponry.
All infantry folks do not carry ammo for every last machine gun in the
unit; they carry their own ammo. Unless they're a sapper, they usually
do not carry claymores. And since when does everyone carry spare batteries
for a unit's radio?
>This usually weighs in the neighborhood of 100-120 lbs. This
>is close to, if not more than, 100% of a females body weight.
Well, first off, you're making some rather unrealistic assumptions here:
1. That combat-capable women are assumed to be only 100-120 lbs. Stick
even a passable layer of muscle on them and even a five-and-a-half-footer
can easily hit 150.
2. Even if I granted that *some* women would not be able to carry this,
it does not follow that *all* women are not able to carry this. There
is no rational reason to say that *all* women should be excluded from
combat, simply because *some* aren't capable of it. I notice that you
do not dare to acknowledge the fact that there are also *some* _men_ who
can't do it, either.
3. Okay, let's even say that *all* women can't carry this much (preposterous,
but for the sake of argument...) What, then, is the cause for saying that
women can't even serve in combat as pilots, or as tank crewpersons, or as
gunners aboard a chopper? There's no massive strength requirement for that.
Your arguments are doubly fallacious, because even if I granted what you're
implying by them, it still does not follow that all women should be excluded
from all combat roles, simply by the fact that they are women.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Stilt Man stil...@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
< We are Microsoft Borg '97. Lower your expectations and surrender >
< your money. Antitrust law is irrelevant. Competition is >
< irrelevant. We will add their biological and technological >
< distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile. >
John Dyson
GINA SOUSAN <sou...@saucer.cc.umr.edu> wrote in article
<5k29s2$hap$1...@news.cc.umr.edu>...
>
> bammer (ka...@e-z.net) wrote:
> : But I would remind you of your last post, in which you refered to
> : the last person (of the many) who disagree with you by saying:
>
> : "It is just too bad that women who want to be in combat
> : have to face opposition from uneducated people like you
> : only because of their gender."
Allow me to ask you to look into the latest CSPAN interview which had an
'encore' showing on this past Saturday, called Woman in the Military. It
had a panel of a LOT of educated (in all areas...2 of which had PHD's, I
think), and one was the President of the Military Readiness Center. She,
along with the rest (and active-duty and retired Generals...one of which
was a female) showed how the presence of woman in the military has created
a HUGE military readiness problem, which is getting worse. They cited a
LOT of problems, including the amounts of adultery cases and fratinization
cases sky-rocketting, the standards being lowered to allow woman to be
'qualified' at jobs, etc....all of which detracts from the mission and
effects the military as a whole. The Generals all stated that the thing
they feared most was having a woman in their unit. It was very good and
educational news conference.
One Marine officer was quoted as saying, "I'm only as fast as my slowest
person...which is almost ALWAYS a woman." These are the leaders of the
military, men and women alike, that are saying that women can't cut it.
The great military machine is being destroyed, by political correctness.
The only problem is that the military...the combative arm that is
protecting YOU, can't be both effective AND politically correct. Do you
want a military that is "fair," or do you want one that is effective. This
is the decision that we have to make.
Before you make it, make sure that you reflect on how great it is to have
the freedoms that you enjoy. And, also keep in mind, that if we're gonna
be 'fair,' then your daughters and sisters are going to be drafted the next
time the draft is activated, whether they're married, or have young kids,
no matter. And they ALL are going to have to register on the 18th birthday
and prepare to possibly go to war...nobody will be exempt, just as it is
with the men right now.
> : > The issue is NOT my
> : > experience in combat, but whether or not women should be in combat.
Gina, my experience IS in combat...I've served in the Persian Gulf war,
I've been in Haiti, I've been in Rwanda, and just recently I returned from
Bosnia. And, No, women should NOT be in combat.
For 2 reasons:
1: The operational consideration: on average, the woman simply cannot
keep the same pace as the man. Woman aren't as physical, and woman aren't
"killers..."...they're nurturers (spelling), they're 'mommies.' They are
not made (naturally) to kill or defend. In a combat situation, the
military cannot afford to be the 'political correctness' experiment.
2: The financial consideration: a LOT more money is spent to
'incorporate' a female into the military than is spent for a man. (Ref:
CSPAN report I mentioned earlier) In a time of drawdowns and cutbacks,
etc, the United States cannot afford to be the 'political correctness'
experiment.
Comments?
--John
jrd...@pipeline.com
http://www.pipeline.com/~jrdyson
John Dyson
>
> Shea (psiwave*@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Gina,
> : First, I did not say that all men are stronger, smarter, faster, etc.
> : than women. I merely stated that their introduction into an all male
> : combat unit would be disruptive and lower the effectiveness of said
> : unit. This is caused mainly by the way men "deal" with women and the
> : tendency of both sexes to "indulge their passions". This _fact_ would
> : greatly reduce the ability of that unit to perform as an effective
> : force. Like it or not most people, both men and women, lack control of
> : their libidos.
>
> with a woman?
It's not just the men, Gina...why do you make that accusation? In fact,
it's MOSTLY the woman. Look what you are inviting...mostly young females,
fresh out of high school, relatively inexperienced, maybe not too
'popular,' and by putting them into an 'all male' scenario, you are putting
them into a federally-funded smorgasboard of manhood. Suddenly, they're
popular!!! Surrounded by hundreds of men, all the time!! MORE than enough
to choose from. In my 8 years, I've seen it...again and again and again.
Don't get me wrong, the men are just as to blame...but, I can honestly say
that, without the woman there, it was NEVER a problem. We were MUCH more
effective, efficient, and 'ready' for combat before the woman gets there.
> The amount of men and women who "indulge their passions" is the minority,
not
> the majority.
That is true, but the number is growing exponentially! Just this past
year, my base has had over 30 adultery cases (in the military, if you are
single and mess around-with somebody who is married, you are BOTH charged
with adultery.) and several counts of fraternization. That's why the
recent news accounts of the problems of sexual activity, such as Tailhook
'91, and Aberdeen, are not so surprising to military members. We've been
screaming about it for YEARS. It's happening at an increasing rate.
> I doubt when the s*** hits the fan, our troops will be too
> busy in their tents "indulging their passions".
It's not 'during' the proverbial s*** hitting the fan, it's during
preparation for it. If you're not prepared, you will lose.
> I don't know about you,
> but if I am being attacked by an advancing enemy, then sex would be the
> LAST thing I would be desiring.
During the Persian Gulf War, I arrested (I was a Military Policeman at the
time) 2 Captains...both married, one medical (female), one pilot (male) who
were 'screwing' near the control tower at D'hahran Air Base.
> I mean if the job requires a person to carry 150lbs for 20 miles, then
> that should be the ONLY standards. Standards should not be lowered to
> accomodate weaker individuals. It would be unfair to the other soldiers
> who have to carry the weaker person's share.
It IS unfair to the other soldiers. Not to mention, I expect that my
'buddy' to the left and the right can do the job. With the lowered
standards, I cannot be sure of that anymore. Thus, effectiveness
deteriorates. And, people start getting killed.
Perfect example...the standards for aircraft aviation were lowered to
accomodate 2 female fighter pilots...one of which, only successfully passed
2 out of 8(or 6, I can't remember) of the important tests to be
'qualified.' Upon failing, she filed a Sexual Discrimination case against
the military, and was immediately 'qualified.' She was the first woman to
kill herself by crashing her aircraft against an aircraft carrier. If the
standards hadn't been lowered, maybe she would still be alive today. Is it
really worth it?
How about the core tasks onboard a naval vessel? A study completed by the
Military Readiness Center showed that women could only complete 1 or 2 of
the core tasks. These are CORE TASKS...lives are at stake, the ship is on
fire, etc, etc. One of the tasks was for 2 people to be able to carry a
litter...with a body weighing 140 pounds. Women coulnd't do it.
So, what did they do? They re-defined the task. Now, the Naval
instruction is that the litter is not carried by 2 people anymore...but by
FOUR people. Why are we lowering the standard?
Addtionally, why do women only have to do 2/3rds the amount of physical
tests--push-ups, sit-ups, etc, etc. Why is she given more time to complete
the annual fitness qualification 'run.' Why are we lowering the standards
and weakening the military...just to be politically correct? I sincerely
hope not. People get killed that way.
Daniel
Gina,
How do you feel about integrating professional sports?
Also, college students are known to be licentious, however, when it's time
for exams they are not usually having sexual escapades. However, too much
"partying" will undoubtedly hinder performance on exams. Would this
scenario of young men and women fratenizing apply in the military?
Sincerely,
A curious observer
GINA SOUSAN <sou...@saucer.cc.umr.edu> wrote in article
<5k27to$h3g$1...@news.cc.umr.edu>...
> Shea (psiwave*@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Gina,
> : First, I did not say that all men are stronger, smarter, faster, etc.
> : than women. I merely stated that their introduction into an all male
> : combat unit would be disruptive and lower the effectiveness of said
> : unit. This is caused mainly by the way men "deal" with women and the
> : tendency of both sexes to "indulge their passions". This _fact_ would
> : greatly reduce the ability of that unit to perform as an effective
> : force. Like it or not most people, both men and women, lack control of
> : their libidos.
>
> How can you support the idea of penalizing women for how a man "deals"
> with a woman? You have just admitted that men also lack this control.
> So, is it fair to keep women out of combat just for this reason? The
> amount of men and women who "indulge their passions" is the minority, not
> the majority. I doubt when the s*** hits the fan, our troops will be too
> busy in their tents "indulging their passions". I don't know about you,
> but if I am being attacked by an advancing enemy, then sex would be the
> LAST thing I would be desiring.
>
> : Second, what in your opinion are "realistic" standards to
> set for
> : combat duty?
>
> I mean if the job requires a person to carry 150lbs for 20 miles, then
> that should be the ONLY standards. Standards should not be lowered to
> accomodate weaker individuals. It would be unfair to the other soldiers
> who have to carry the weaker person's share.
>
Shea
Stilt Man wrote:
>
> Pitiful argument. This assumes the supremely egotistical idea that the
> women in a combat unit are automatically going to find the men irresistibly
> attractive, simply as a "lack of control" thing.
>
> Just because you can't keep it in your pants doesn't mean the women can't,
> either.
Did I say this, NO. I SAID, _BOTH_ men AND women when put together
tend, _TEND_, to indulge their passions. No where did I say ALL MEN AND
WOMEN. If your only bases for countering my arguement is to add words
that I did not say, I hear they are looking for posters in alt.barney.
> > Second, what in your opinion are "realistic" standards to set for
> >combat duty? Let me try to give you an example. War load for your
> >standard infantry grunt consists of basic equipment (LBE, Rucksack,
> >sleeping bag, E-tool, 4 qts of water, etc), rifle and ammo, ammo for the
> >platoon MG's, usually a M136 (disposable AT rocket), maybe a couple of
> >claymores, rations for up to 5 days and possibly spare batteries for the
> >radios.
>
> Um . . . excuse me, but all infantry folks do not carry anti-tank weaponry.
> All infantry folks do not carry ammo for every last machine gun in the
> unit; they carry their own ammo. Unless they're a sapper, they usually
> do not carry claymores. And since when does everyone carry spare batteries
> for a unit's radio?
Um......excuse me, but during war those not carrying the MG's do. If
you are going on a patrol for any length of time you bet your ass
everyone carrys extra ammo not only for themselves but for the M60.
Plan on conducting a defense anytime soon? Better have those
claymores. Once more, if you are out for ANY length of time better have
those spare batteries for the PRC-77, PRC-126, SINGARS, Vincent, NODS,
SATCOM, whatever. This was just an example as the packing list changes
according to the mission, but what about the AG of the SAW gunners?
That tripod (M60) and those spare barrels (both) get heavy after several
kilometers of jungle.
>
> >This usually weighs in the neighborhood of 100-120 lbs. This
> >is close to, if not more than, 100% of a females body weight.
>
> Well, first off, you're making some rather unrealistic assumptions here:
And your making some unrealistic claims.
> 1. That combat-capable women are assumed to be only 100-120 lbs. Stick
> even a passable layer of muscle on them and even a five-and-a-half-footer
> can easily hit 150.
Easily hit 150? Yeah if they spend 4 hours in a gym seven days a week.
> 2. Even if I granted that *some* women would not be able to carry this,
> it does not follow that *all* women are not able to carry this. There
> is no rational reason to say that *all* women should be excluded from
> combat, simply because *some* aren't capable of it. I notice that you
> do not dare to acknowledge the fact that there are also *some* _men_ who
> can't do it, either.
Change *some* to *most*. And there is no "rational reason" to put women
into combat arms simply becase they are women, which seems to be _your_
arguement.
Of course some men are not physically able to due this duty either, but
I "dare not" acknowledge this _FACT_ as it would mean I would be a
traitor to my gender or some stupid shit like that.
> 3. Okay, let's even say that *all* women can't carry this much (preposterous,
> but for the sake of argument...) What, then, is the cause for saying that
> women can't even serve in combat as pilots, or as tank crewpersons, or as
> gunners aboard a chopper? There's no massive strength requirement for that.
JESUS! DID I SAY THAT, _NO_! My point was that women are disruptive,
and would lower the effectiveness in an INFANTRY COMBAT UNIT.
> Your arguments are doubly fallacious, because even if I granted what you're
> implying by them, it still does not follow that all women should be excluded
> from all combat roles, simply by the fact that they are women.
And the arguement that all women should be _in_ combat units simply
becuase they are women is ridiculus in the extreme. Social
expermentation is _NOT_ the job of the military.
nicholas louis rogal
On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 Q_ve...@nycmail.com wrote:
> On 26 Apr 1997 20:06:51 GMT, sou...@saucer.cc.umr.edu (GINA SOUSAN) wrote:
>
>
> >Not ALL men are stronger than ALL women. THAT is a fact. And, as long
> >as that stays a fact, women should be given a chance to compete for combat duty.
> >Furthermore, I doubt that women that want to be in combat are striving to
> >prove some point. Is it really so hard to believe that there are women
> >who love this country enough to defend it with their lives?
> >
> >Gina
>
>
> You recognize that strength is one of the prime factors considered when
> selecting soldiers for combat.
>
> Consider this:
>
> ** There are some men who are stronger than all women.
True.
>
> ** There are no women who are stronger than all men.
True
>
> ** Most men are stronger than most women.
True
>
> ** Our entire combat forces could not consist of only women.
Why not.
>
> ** Our entire combat forces have always consisted of only men
True
>
> ** Combat forces need not contain women.
True
>
> ** Combat forces must contain men.
Not see above
4 out of 6 you get a C (probably a B with the curve)
>
> the use of women in combat could never be employed in a concentrated
> manner. At best they would have to be selectively assigned so as not to
> weaken the overall strength of a combat unit.
>
> Is the idea getting through or do I need to take further down the line of
> logic?
>
> Finally, there may be "women who love this country enough to defend it with
> their lives", however, patriotism, not even nationalism, qualifies one for
> combat. The determination of what attributes do qualify one have come about
> through the study of affective, efficient military operation over several
> hundred years and they always point at one single undisputable, over-riding
> truth...males make the best combat troops.
>
> The defense of the Constitution is the responsibility of the armed forces,
> they should be allowed the benefit of selecting only the very best people
> to do the job.
>
> Civil rights, individual rights, political correctness and personal
> desires, all take a back seat to the defense of the nation, of our very way
> of life.
>
> Don't you agree?
>
> Q_ve...@nycmail.com
>
>
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <01bc5439$b433e460$ceb80b26@john> "John Dyson"
<jrd...@pipeline.com> writes: in and again.
>> The amount of men and women who "indulge their passions" is the
minority,>not the majority.
>
>That is true, but the number is growing exponentially! Just this past
>year, my base has had over 30 adultery cases (in the military, if you
are single and mess around-with somebody who is married, you are BOTH
charged>with adultery.) and several counts of fraternization. That's
why the>recent news accounts of the problems of sexual activity, such
as Tailhook>'91, and Aberdeen, are not so surprising to military
members. We've been>screaming about it for YEARS. It's happening at
an increasing rate.
---------
So, are you suggesting that all these men are monks when
women aren't COMPETING....they DO get breaks from time to time?
My guess is getting a whore is ok, but dealing with fellow
female soldiers is not. Hmmmmmm. Sounds like double
dealing to me.
>
>> I doubt when the s*** hits the fan, our troops will be too
>> busy in their tents "indulging their passions".
>
>It's not 'during' the proverbial s*** hitting the fan, it's during
>preparation for it. If you're not prepared, you will lose.
-------
Again, men don't have any SEX in the preparation phase? :]
--------
>
>> I don't know about you, > but if I am being attacked by an
advancing enemy, then sex would be the >> LAST thing I would be
desiring.
>
>During the Persian Gulf War, I arrested (I was a Military Policeman at
thetime) 2 Captains...both married, one medical (female), one pilot
(male) who>were 'screwing' near the control tower at D'hahran Air Base.
>
>> I mean if the job requires a person to carry 150lbs for 20 miles,
then >> that should be the ONLY standards. Standards should not be
lowered to >> accomodate weaker individuals. It would be unfair to the
other soldiers >> who have to carry the weaker person's share.
--------
What does the army do when a man can't carry as much as another
man? ....the weaker one gets an honorable discharge?
----------
>
>It IS unfair to the other soldiers. Not to mention, I expect that my
>'buddy' to the left and the right can do the job. With the lowered
>standards, I cannot be sure of that anymore. Thus, effectiveness
>deteriorates. And, people start getting killed.
--------
There are stronger and weaker military personnel...one is
ALWAYS either stronger or weaker than another....always...
....and people do die in war. The thing is to make your
military all it CAN be, using people of different strengths.
----------
>
>Perfect example...the standards for aircraft aviation were lowered to
>accomodate 2 female fighter pilots...one of which, only successfully
passed>2 out of 8(or 6, I can't remember) of the important tests to be
>'qualified.' Upon failing, she filed a Sexual Discrimination case
againstthe military, and was immediately 'qualified.' She was the
first woman to>kill herself by crashing her aircraft against an
aircraft carrier. If the>standards hadn't been lowered, maybe she
would still be alive today. Is it>really worth it?
-----------
Yes....didn't we just have another young MALE soldier die in
an air accident? Perhaps you'd like to provide us with the
records of all personnel who have died in crashes who didn't
have the required amount of air-time requirements, et al.
Maybe if we demanded that ALL MILITARY PERSONNEL BE ALL ALIKE
AND HAVE PENIS POWER there would be no more crashes. :]
----------
>
>How about the core tasks onboard a naval vessel? A study completed by
the>Military Readiness Center showed that women could only complete 1
or 2 of>the core tasks. These are CORE TASKS...lives are at stake, the
ship is on>fire, etc, etc. One of the tasks was for 2 people to be
able to carry a>litter...with a body weighing 140 pounds. Women
coulnd't do it.
---------
Hell, I'm not even strong, and I could do that. Where did
this particular stat come from?
---------
>
>So, what did they do? They re-defined the task. Now, the Naval
>instruction is that the litter is not carried by 2 people
anymore...but by>FOUR people. Why are we lowering the standard?
---------
Many hands make light work. What we are doing is demanding
that those who make up just over 50% of this country (it's
citizens) are represented in the military. Makes sense to
me.
---------
>
>Addtionally, why do women only have to do 2/3rds the amount of
physicaltests--push-ups, sit-ups, etc, etc. Why is she given more time
to completethe annual fitness qualification 'run.' Why are we lowering
the standardsand weakening the military...just to be politically
correct? I sincerely>hope not. People get killed that way.
>
>Comments?
>
>--John
==========
Keep this in mind. America is MY country just like it is
yours. If I want the opportunity to defend it, I deserve
that viz my citizenship. It's not a matter of "should"
we but that we must. Politically Correct is losing it's
following....not we're talking simply "correct". If "people"
get killed it will be male and female people, both who want
to serve. The way I see it, we should forbid the
Aberdeen "Simpsons" of the world from raping our fellow sol-
diers and start training them, so we will win any potential
war.
Lefty
*re...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Q_ve...@nycmail.com wrote:
>
> On 26 Apr 1997 20:06:51 GMT, sou...@saucer.cc.umr.edu (GINA SOUSAN) wrote:
> >Not ALL men are stronger than ALL women. THAT is a fact. And, as long
> >as that stays a fact, women should be given a chance to compete for combat duty.
> >Furthermore, I doubt that women that want to be in combat are striving to
> >prove some point. Is it really so hard to believe that there are women
> >who love this country enough to defend it with their lives?
> You recognize that strength is one of the prime factors considered when
> selecting soldiers for combat.
She said nothing of the sort. She merely commented upon the relative
values in average strength. Strength, in the form of outright physical
ability, has been mitigated more and more over the centuries: that's
what mechanisation does. Why is it suddenly impossible to extend this to
the level where the average woman has no greater difficulty performing
than the average man? (Mind you, I personally think that points already
been reached.)
> Consider this:
>
> ** There are some men who are stronger than all women.
In a statistically sinificant way? No. Therefore our point is true, but
only trivially true. I can play philosophy games as well. :)
> ** There are no women who are stronger than all men.
Unprovable assertion; therefore it's meaningless. besides, I could
gainsay you with as much logical validity so what's the point of
including this assertion. Ain't philosophy fun? ;)
> ** Most men are stronger than most women.
granted.
> ** Our entire combat forces could not consist of only women.
Why? They make a greater percentage of the populAtion, they should be
_more_ able to make up an entire combat force requirement. You must be
using some suppressed premises; detail them or your assertion is
invalid.
> ** Our entire combat forces have always consisted of only men
Factually incorrect. Remember, this is an international discussion. ;)
> ** Combat forces need not contain women.
>
> ** Combat forces must contain men.
Why? Name one task that is gender dependan in it's performance. Just
one.
> the use of women in combat could never be employed in a concentrated
> manner.
Okay, this just doesn't make sense in english. What do you mean?
> At best they would have to be selectively assigned so as not to
> weaken the overall strength of a combat unit.
How so? Are you talking in outright physical terms? If so then you are
mistaken and the experience of european armies demonstrates this.Do you
mean in ways other than the physical? If so, which?
You are operating with a rather large swag of suppressed premises
that're not borne out by experience. Of course, if you accept your base
views then, yes, it follows logically that women can't fit into a
military structure combat role. But that's one of your suppressed
premises (it's either that or you're just irrational) so your argument
is tautological. Nice try.
> Is the idea getting through or do I need to take further down the line of
> logic?
I think you need to go back and re-do this logic thing; you're not that
good at it, sorry.
> Finally, there may be "women who love this country enough to defend it with
> their lives", however, patriotism, not even nationalism, qualifies one for
> combat. The determination of what attributes do qualify one have come about
> through the study of affective, efficient military operation over several
> hundred years and they always point at one single undisputable, over-riding
> truth...males make the best combat troops.
Oh, crap. If we take your assertaion that what makes the best solidier
leads to the best suitable candidates being assigned combat duties then
the US would have to change it's entire assignment policy. They've
consistently assigned people who score lower in intelligence tests to
combat unit when experience the world over shows that this is not the
right way to do it; you want your brightest, best thinkers in the grunt
units so that the can do just that: think their way out of things.
Morons can drive trucks.
Look, history is against you: sex is not a determining factor in combat
roles since the development of effective methods of mechanisation (in
the crass sense).
> The defense of the Constitution is the responsibility of the armed forces,
> they should be allowed the benefit of selecting only the very best people
> to do the job.
But only if they're male, according to you. Why not include other
conditions, like, say, male and white. And how 'bout hetrosexual as
well. Married. With blue eyes. Why stop there?
> Civil rights, individual rights, political correctness and personal
> desires, all take a back seat to the defense of the nation, of our very way
> of life.
>
> Don't you agree?
If you abrogate those very same things in order to protect them you sort
of defeat the whole point of it. Don't you agree? ;)
tengai no ko kyaku
Stilt Man
In article <337ab983...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
<Q_ve...@nycmail.com> wrote:
>On 26 Apr 1997 20:06:51 GMT, sou...@saucer.cc.umr.edu (GINA SOUSAN) wrote:
>>Not ALL men are stronger than ALL women. THAT is a fact. And, as long
>>as that stays a fact, women should be given a chance to compete for combat duty.
>>Furthermore, I doubt that women that want to be in combat are striving to
>>prove some point. Is it really so hard to believe that there are women
>>who love this country enough to defend it with their lives?
>You recognize that strength is one of the prime factors considered when
>selecting soldiers for combat.
Maybe in the Dark Ages, but today? Give me an M-16 and I'll take out the
much stronger Arnold Schwarzenegger any day of the week. It's not whether
he's stronger than me, it's whether I can see him and shoot him before he
can see and shoot me. Give me a missile launcher, show me which piece
is the trigger and which way I'm supposed to point it, and I'll take out
a tank just as well as a guy I'm ill-prepared to arm-wrestle against. No
strength required there (as long as you can heft the thing), just perception
and coordination. If it's a heat-seaking missile I'm using on an aircraft
passing overhead, I don't even need that much in the way of coordination,
because the missile can find the plane better than I can.
>** There are some men who are stronger than all women.
Irrelevant. We don't put only the men who are stronger than all women in
the armed forces. Modern combat does not require someone who is stronger
than all women. Skill is more important than brute force these days, and
there are no men who are more skilled than all women in all ways related
to combat.
>** There are no women who are stronger than all men.
Irrelevant. See above.
>** Most men are stronger than most women.
Irrelevant. You're not arguing to keep *most* women out of combat, you're
arguing to keep *all* women out of combat. Most men are not stronger than
all women.
>** Our entire combat forces could not consist of only women.
Sure they could.
>** Our entire combat forces have always consisted of only men
Irrelevant. Our entire combat forces once always consisted of only *white*
men as well.
>** Combat forces need not contain women.
They need not contain men, either.
>** Combat forces must contain men.
Why?
>the use of women in combat could never be employed in a concentrated
>manner. At best they would have to be selectively assigned so as not to
>weaken the overall strength of a combat unit.
Why?
>Is the idea getting through or do I need to take further down the line of
>logic?
Oh, is that the word you're using for it?
>Finally, there may be "women who love this country enough to defend it with
>their lives", however, patriotism, not even nationalism, qualifies one for
>combat. The determination of what attributes do qualify one have come about
>through the study of affective, efficient military operation over several
>hundred years and they always point at one single undisputable, over-riding
>truth...males make the best combat troops.
Several hundred years ago, when strength was still a major factor in combat,
this might be a point. However, that still didn't stop Joan of Arc even
then. Today, technology has rendered physical strength largely obselete in
the combat arena. A bullet or a missile doesn't give a damn how strong you
are, it'll splatter you all over the dirt just the same whether you're a
Mr. Universe or a Stilt Man. ;)
Mark Evans
Stilt Man (N...@unsolicited.email.dammit) wrote:
: In article <336326...@ix.netcom.com>, Shea <psiwave*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: > First, I did not say that all men are stronger, smarter, faster, etc.
: >than women. I merely stated that their introduction into an all male
: >combat unit would be disruptive and lower the effectiveness of said
: >unit. This is caused mainly by the way men "deal" with women and the
: >tendency of both sexes to "indulge their passions". This _fact_ would
: >greatly reduce the ability of that unit to perform as an effective
: >force. Like it or not most people, both men and women, lack control of
: >their libidos.
: Pitiful argument. This assumes the supremely egotistical idea that the
: women in a combat unit are automatically going to find the men irresistibly
: attractive, simply as a "lack of control" thing.
The more real risk is of them considering prostitution as a method of
personal enrichment. Proper methods of enforcing disiplin would
be needed here, one of these is to ensure that any "poor helpless
girl" stereotypes are dumped with the rest of the garbage.
: 1. That combat-capable women are assumed to be only 100-120 lbs. Stick
: even a passable layer of muscle on them and even a five-and-a-half-footer
: can easily hit 150.
:
: 2. Even if I granted that *some* women would not be able to carry this,
: it does not follow that *all* women are not able to carry this. There
: is no rational reason to say that *all* women should be excluded from
: combat, simply because *some* aren't capable of it. I notice that you
: do not dare to acknowledge the fact that there are also *some* _men_ who
: can't do it, either.
The major point is that men who can't pass shouldn't be there at all either,
though undoubtedly such men do end up in conscript armies (just not for very
long if combat situations arise).
What is needed is a standard which is non gender based, a third option
rather than the "no women at all" and the AA position of there must be
X% of women (and if need be throw out all the standards if that is
what is needed to get X%). It appears that the POV of the equalitarian is
not being heard here. That of the traditionalist and the (so called) radical
feminist are, but the whole thing is not a binary between these two,
however certain people might like to think it is...
: 3. Okay, let's even say that *all* women can't carry this much (preposterous,
: but for the sake of argument...) What, then, is the cause for saying that
: women can't even serve in combat as pilots, or as tank crewpersons, or as
: gunners aboard a chopper? There's no massive strength requirement for that.
Or as the bombidier/gunner on a fixed wing aircraft.
James Buster
In article <336726...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
<*rem40*@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>She said nothing of the sort. She merely commented upon the relative
>values in average strength. Strength, in the form of outright physical
>ability, has been mitigated more and more over the centuries: that's
>what mechanisation does.
Unfortunately, armor does not hold territory, *infantry* does.
Unless your sole goal is to kill some of the enemy without
bothering to hold territory *from* the enemy, you need infantry.
Mechanization does not replace infantry.
>Why? Name one task that is gender dependan in it's performance. Just
>one.
Gender dependent? None. Dependent upon attributes more likely to found
in men than women? Infantry.
>They've consistently assigned people who score lower in intelligence tests
>to combat unit when experience the world over shows that this is not the
>right way to do it; you want your brightest, best thinkers in the grunt
>units so that the can do just that: think their way out of things.
In which case, the world is wrong, and the US is right.
A smart person operating at unit level can do no more than save a
single unit. A smart person operating at division level has a much
higher impact on total casualties and effectiveness.
>Morons can drive trucks.
Morons cannot command armies. Think about this some more.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
*re...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
James Buster wrote:
>
> In article <336726...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
> <*rem40*@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Unfortunately, armor does not hold territory, *infantry* does.
> Unless your sole goal is to kill some of the enemy without
> bothering to hold territory *from* the enemy, you need infantry.
> Mechanization does not replace infantry.
Yes. And? Where does this show that women are somehow incapable of
perfoming the task?
> >Why? Name one task that is gender dependan in it's performance. Just
> >one.
>
> Gender dependent? None. Dependent upon attributes more likely to found
> in men than women? Infantry.
So what? The contention at hand is one that women are unable to
perform/should not be able to perform combat roles (everybody keps
harping on about grunt tasks, but face it, we're talking the whole gamut
here, not just the ones the anti brigade think they might win on.) when
that isn't supported by evidence. Should women be accepted for combat
roles _if_they_happen_to_want_to_do_them? No, but if they met the
requirements of the role there is no reason to further deny them the
chance to be shot like everybody else.
> >They've consistently assigned people who score lower in intelligence tests
> >to combat unit when experience the world over shows that this is not the
> >right way to do it; you want your brightest, best thinkers in the grunt
> >units so that the can do just that: think their way out of things.
>
> In which case, the world is wrong, and the US is right.
How so? Because the US army performs, historically, worse than other
armies? Help me out here, I fail to understand your logic. You are using
some, aren't you? ;)
> A smart person operating at unit level can do no more than save a
> single unit. A smart person operating at division level has a much
> higher impact on total casualties and effectiveness.
I suggest you study more history to see why this doesn't work. As an
example of this policy in practice I offer Exhibit A: the 90th Infantry
Division in WW2; one of the crappiest units, if not the crappiest, in
the war. Why? Well, compare the educational ability averages of this
unit against other US units that did perform well - you'll find that the
better performing units were the ones with the higher average with an
educated (and presumably intelligent) juior officer/nco cadre.
For exhibit B I'd suggest you look at the entire German army. You want a
ounter-example of the effect? try US infantry units in Vietnam. Compare
them to Australian units.
Your turn.
> >Morons can drive trucks.
>
> Morons cannot command armies.
What about MacArthur? ;)
> Think about this some more.
I have. Oh, did I mention I do this for a living? Silly me, sorry. :)
> Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
> atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
> much like Earth.
Concrete it over and paint it green; be done with it. :(
For those of you in the US reading this who are incensed by some of my
comments: deal with it. This is an international group, the question is
not one countries question. The flippant comments about US-type things
and whatnot are pure atagonistic material. Try and see past it.
Hold up a red flag, watch the bull charge. Silly bull.
*re...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
ad...@poboxes.com wrote:
> >> Civil rights, individual rights, political correctness and personal
> >> desires, all take a back seat to the defense of the nation, of our very way
> >> of life.
> >>
> >> Don't you agree?
> >
> >If you abrogate those very same things in order to protect them you sort
> >of defeat the whole point of it. Don't you agree? ;)
> We really don't care what you think about our armed forces, you know! In
> fact I'm surprised that anyone outside the US thinks about them at
> all...that is, until you find you're up to your ass in alligators and then
> you start screaming for us to pull you out.
I should point out that NZ has never requested US military assitance.
Maybe you need to up your doseage before your preconceptions choke you.
> Since you little island nation has never fielded an effective fighting
> force I doubt that much will be thought of the opinion of one of its
> insignificant blow-hards.
Ah, sweetums, can't deal with dissension? My heart bleeds for your lack
of ability to be tolerant. I'm glad you said effective, as opposed to
large, for, again, I know that history proves you wrong. After all, it
wasn't New Zealand that screwed up the Italian campaign was it now?
(Hello, Mark Clark ;)
I'm given to understand that most other adults don't worry about the
size of it if they're at all balanced. Fascinating that you seem to be
obcessed with size.
> Don't come to an axe fight arm with a book on political correctness.
Me?! Politically correct?! <snigger> It may come as a shock to you, for
in your limited way you seem only to perceive dissension as PCness, but
my interest is purely on the basis of rationality. I argue for a living,
I present and evaluate arguments. Most of the ones I've seen here on
this subject suck the big one. You don't fit that category because you
haven't actually said anything other than for irrational ranting.
> You hear?
Yes'sum bossman, Ii's hears you.
What was the phrase, ummm, oh yes: bite me.
re...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Oh, get_over_ it! Sue me for all I care.
tengai no ko kyaku
*re...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Mark Evans wrote:
> What is needed is a standard which is non gender based, a third option
> rather than the "no women at all" and the AA position of there must be
> X% of women (and if need be throw out all the standards if that is
> what is needed to get X%). It appears that the POV of the equalitarian is
> not being heard here. That of the traditionalist and the (so called) radical
> feminist are, but the whole thing is not a binary between these two,
> however certain people might like to think it is...
It won't work you know. You're being rational and reasonable. I've tried
that approach. Much as I agree with you I think we're going to have to
kill both sides of the argument simply in order to let the middle ground
be heard.
Stilt Man
In article <336635...@ix.netcom.com>, Shea <psiwave*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Stilt Man wrote:
>> Pitiful argument. This assumes the supremely egotistical idea that the
>> women in a combat unit are automatically going to find the men irresistibly
>> attractive, simply as a "lack of control" thing.
>> either.
>Did I say this, NO. I SAID, _BOTH_ men AND women when put together
>tend, _TEND_, to indulge their passions. No where did I say ALL MEN AND
>WOMEN. If your only bases for countering my arguement is to add words
>that I did not say, I hear they are looking for posters in alt.barney.
And your basis for asserting the existence of this tendency would be _?_
And the difference between fraternization in the units with the women actually
as members thereof as opposed to the men simply fraternizing with women they
meet while off-duty would be _?_ (Lest you forget, it's not like there
weren't complaints in France and Italy about American soldiers . . . uh . . .
dinking around while on leave during World War II. Whatsamatta, worried that,
if there were a woman in the unit to see this, that they wouldn't think too
highly of it? My sympathy is just oozing from my pores . . .)
>> > Second, what in your opinion are "realistic" standards to set for
>> >combat duty? Let me try to give you an example. War load for your
>> >standard infantry grunt consists of basic equipment (LBE, Rucksack,
>> >sleeping bag, E-tool, 4 qts of water, etc), rifle and ammo, ammo for the
>> >platoon MG's, usually a M136 (disposable AT rocket), maybe a couple of
>> >claymores, rations for up to 5 days and possibly spare batteries for the
>> >radios.
>> Um . . . excuse me, but all infantry folks do not carry anti-tank weaponry.
>> All infantry folks do not carry ammo for every last machine gun in the
>> unit; they carry their own ammo. Unless they're a sapper, they usually
>> do not carry claymores. And since when does everyone carry spare batteries
>> for a unit's radio?
>Um......excuse me, but during war those not carrying the MG's do.
Loosely translated, they don't carry both the machine guns and the ammo.
So what's the problem?
>> >This usually weighs in the neighborhood of 100-120 lbs. This
>> >is close to, if not more than, 100% of a females body weight.
>> Well, first off, you're making some rather unrealistic assumptions here:
>And your making some unrealistic claims.
>> 1. That combat-capable women are assumed to be only 100-120 lbs. Stick
>> even a passable layer of muscle on them and even a five-and-a-half-footer
>> can easily hit 150.
>Easily hit 150? Yeah if they spend 4 hours in a gym seven days a week.
I was under the impression that we were talking about women who wanted to
be soldiers here. Those don't tend to be wimps.
>> 2. Even if I granted that *some* women would not be able to carry this,
>> it does not follow that *all* women are not able to carry this. There
>> is no rational reason to say that *all* women should be excluded from
>> combat, simply because *some* aren't capable of it. I notice that you
>> do not dare to acknowledge the fact that there are also *some* _men_ who
>> can't do it, either.
>Change *some* to *most*.
Irrelevant. Anything short of "all" eliminates any rational justification for
excluding "all".
>And there is no "rational reason" to put women
>into combat arms simply becase they are women, which seems to be _your_
>arguement.
No, that's your straw man of my argument. I am saying that we should not
exclude women from being under combat arms simply because they are women.
That is not the same thing as including them simply because they're women.
>Of course some men are not physically able to due this duty either, but
>I "dare not" acknowledge this _FACT_ as it would mean I would be a
>traitor to my gender or some stupid shit like that.
You're missing the point. We do not exclude men simply because some of
them are physically unable to do this duty. Yet you are arguing to exclude
women on that same basis. Maybe you call that logic, but I call it flagrant
misogyny.
>> 3. Okay, let's even say that *all* women can't carry this much (preposterous,
>> but for the sake of argument...) What, then, is the cause for saying that
>> women can't even serve in combat as pilots, or as tank crewpersons, or as
>> gunners aboard a chopper? There's no massive strength requirement for that.
>JESUS! DID I SAY THAT, _NO_! My point was that women are disruptive,
>and would lower the effectiveness in an INFANTRY COMBAT UNIT.
Okay, maybe I misinterpreted here. To my knowledge, however, women are also
excluded from combat zones in the roles I'm describing as well, and largely
on the same ill-conceived reasoning that you're putting forward here.
>> Your arguments are doubly fallacious, because even if I granted what you're
>> implying by them, it still does not follow that all women should be excluded
>> from all combat roles, simply by the fact that they are women.
>And the arguement that all women should be _in_ combat units simply
>becuase they are women is ridiculus in the extreme.
And if I were actually saying that, maybe I'd care whether it's ridiculous
or not.
It is not me that's making a judgment call on gender here. I'm saying that
we should make no judgment calls there: if a woman is physically capable
of performing the duty of a combat infantryman, there is no rational reason
to exclude her only on the basis that she's a woman. That *is* the argument
that you're ultimately giving. You're dressing it up with various fallacious
"physical strength" excuses, "fraternization" complaints (which I chalk
Horvath
On 1 May 1997 06:59:35 GMT, bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster)
scribbled:
>In article <336726...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
> <*rem40*@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>>Why? Name one task that is gender dependan in it's performance. Just
>>one.
>
Sing baritone.
Horvath
I was surfing the net when Yahoo was only a hillbilly cheer.
ma...@primarycolor.com
Someone wrote:
> Civil rights, individual rights, political correctness and personal
> desires, all take a back seat to the defense of the nation, of our very way
> of life.
>
> Don't you agree?
Then what is our way of life? Think about it: If our "way of life" is
put aside to "defend our way of life" then what are we defending?
Not only that, I would like to know why the rest of society should go
to hell in a handbasket (and why this is tolerable) while the military
should be exempt from the same pressures the rest of our society lives
under.
I love reading how affirmative action should allow the incompetant to
fly planes, perform surgery, or even manage billion dollar businesses
in order to meet a diversity quota while "important" issues such
as child-care, social interactions, and the military should be
exempt.
Excuse me, but since when was it _ever_ acceptable to put aside common
sense and a commitment to quality workmanship? If we can't stand for
a woman cracking under pressure in the military, why should she be
allowed to do so in the operating room?
The military is well known for being a "good old boys" club where
abuses are steamrolled and projects are covered up. Blow up a few
million gallons of biological weapons and indirectly expose civilian
spouses of military personell to infection diseases? Of course.
It's all in the defense of "democracy" of course.
Vietnam: That was a great idea. Force millions of young men to fight and
die in an unpopular war. That's a great way to roust up sympathy with
communism and liberalism. Does anyone realize that if the Vietnam
conflict hadn't appeared, we wouldn't be in such a mess with a liberal
elite?
Please note: I'm not espousing any fundamental political or military
agenda here, I'm just making some observations.
Mark Sobolewski
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Sean C. Jordan
woo...@usa.net wrote:
: On 30 Apr 1997 01:55:12 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway)
: wrote:
: > ==========
: > Keep this in mind. America is MY country just like it is
: > yours. If I want the opportunity to defend it, I deserve
: > that viz my citizenship. It's not a matter of "should"
: > we but that we must. Politically Correct is losing it's
: > following....not we're talking simply "correct". If "people"
: > get killed it will be male and female people, both who want
: > to serve. The way I see it, we should forbid the
: > Aberdeen "Simpsons" of the world from raping our fellow sol-
: > diers and start training them, so we will win any potential
: > war.
: >
: > Lefty
: You can scratch and scream all you won't but It's as simple as this:
: Women are not mentally fit for combat, and never will be. What's more, they
: cannot be made physically fit to the extent that they would not be a
: detriment to a combat force...regardless of the form of combat.
Now, you are trying to bring in mental capability? Now is where you are
100% WRONG -- first of all, how would this be proven? There is no way
a definitive study could be done outside of combat, and within combat the
margin of error for a study of these things would bring in INSANE amounts
of error (image of a little sociologist running around through gunfire to
ask questions like "are you stressed out" and G-d knows how the armed
forces lies about sh'' like that).
And, tell me, if a large scale war were to happen -- what %age of jobs
do you think would involve hand-to-hand combat? We're talking high-tech,
we're talking biological warfare, we're talking computerized battle
strategies, we're talking ground-to-air, we're talking anti-ballistic...
: Women have had several thousand years to prove themselves capable of doing
: certain things....and they have succeeded in some minor ares. However, in
: task which involve extreme mental toughness and extraordinary strength,
: they have never been capable as a gender, of consistently performing as
: well as men.
Several thousand years? More like 150, if that, and womyn HAVE proven
themselves capable by posing as men and serving along with all the men
there (q.v. Civil War, q.v. Revolutionary War, q.v. every 19th century
war)...and they have been silenced.
: The country should not be required to engage in combat with less than the
: best possible force. The best possible force does not include women.
Does the best possible force also xclude gays and lesbians? What's wrong
is not the womyn in question, what's wrong is the men's reaction to them.
And we have made WAY too many concessions for military members' sexism
and homophobia. Maybe they should be EDUCATED, so they can learn to live
(or die) with it.
--
-*=Luckycharms=*-
sjo...@zeus.towson.edu web...@hops.cs.jhu.edu
http://zeus.towson.edu/~sjorda1/
RIOT QUEER! Much love to Bikini Kill, Conflict, Crass, and Heavens to Betsy!
"Breeders think they gonna rule! I know what I'm gonna fuckin' do,
Me & my queer friends gonna barge on through!
So FUCK YOU!" -- adapted from Bikini Kill.
big_...@hotmail.com
How about we exclude women on the basis fo them being an unneeded and
dangerous distraction to the majority of our combat forces(men) when
it is most critical.
John Beatty
*rem40*@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
[lop]
> So what? The contention at hand is one that women are unable to
> perform/should not be able to perform combat roles (everybody keps
> harping on about grunt tasks, but face it, we're talking the whole gamut
> here, not just the ones the anti brigade think they might win on.) when
> that isn't supported by evidence. Should women be accepted for combat
> roles _if_they_happen_to_want_to_do_them? No, but if they met the
> requirements of the role there is no reason to further deny them the
> chance to be shot like everybody else.
Here's a reason: Women can volunteer--CHOOSE--to go into combat. Men,
ont the other hand, CANNOT CHOOSE NOT TO.
Just what do you think that does to morale, leave alone readiness? I
can see it now: "Oh, no, thanks, sir. I'd as soon not go." Soldiers of
which gender do you think would get away with that? The one that can
get pregnant the night before movement, or the other one?
No, not all women would do that, but enough would that would leave a
distinctly bad taste in the mouth. And spare us the bilge about "the
next war will be too fast..." because of the abundant counterexamples in
the past decade.
--
JD Beatty West Allis, Wisconsin, USA
jdbe...@execpc.com
Beatty's Maxim: The only sources of historical truth are Time Machines
and Faith. The trick is knowing which one you're working with.
David Base
> > 3. Okay, let's even say that *all* women can't carry this much
(preposterous,
> > but for the sake of argument...) What, then, is the cause for saying that
> > women can't even serve in combat as pilots, or as tank crewpersons, or as
> > gunners aboard a chopper? There's no massive strength requirement for that.
I'm not sure the physical strength question is the most important issue in
this era of modern weaponry. Sure, you wouldn't put women in a combat
infantry unit. And, high-tech, no strength required weapons systems can
be shot down or disabled, forcing surviving crew members to BECOME
infantry (or swimmers). But I think strength is not the real issue. The
Viet Cong, and the North Vietnamese Army put on a pretty gutsy infantry
performance with troops (male and female) who were probably smaller on
average than their opponents. They would have lost, militarily, because
they were outgunned. Not because they were weak. They won, politically,
because they were mentally tough and they had the will to fight hard.
> My point was that women are disruptive,
> and would lower the effectiveness in an INFANTRY COMBAT UNIT.
The question is: Is a homogenous fighting unit more disciplined and
effective than a heterogenous unit? There are lots of military men who
think so. If that's the case, though, should we further segregate and
homogenize our military units for maximum effectiveness? Maybe. But that
will never happen for political and social reasons. In a democracy, war
is a political activity.
So, given that, the real question is: The next time we want to conduct a
serious war (which requires political support to do, and the cost of which
is lots of troops coming home in body bags), will support for the war be
eroded if there are young women in those body bags, more so than if there
were only young men in them? Will the perceived cost of conducting a war
be greater if there are going to be significant female casualties? If the
perceived cost of going to war is greater, would our political will to do
so then be diminished? And if our political willingness to go to war is
diminished, would not our perceived military strength be diminished?
Women may be able to fight just fine. But if the American people are
reluctant to ask them to do so, then our military's effectiveness as a
deterent to potential adversaries may be weakened. And our ability to
maintain the domestic political support necessary to win a long and
difficult war once we're in it may be jepardized.
But, then again, I could be wrong.
Dave
Mark Evans
David Base (db...@bbn.com) wrote:
:
:
:
: > > 3. Okay, let's even say that *all* women can't carry this much
: (preposterous,
: > > but for the sake of argument...) What, then, is the cause for saying that
: > > women can't even serve in combat as pilots, or as tank crewpersons, or as
: > > gunners aboard a chopper? There's no massive strength requirement for that.
:
: I'm not sure the physical strength question is the most important issue in
: this era of modern weaponry. Sure, you wouldn't put women in a combat
: infantry unit. And, high-tech, no strength required weapons systems can
: be shot down or disabled, forcing surviving crew members to BECOME
: infantry (or swimmers). But I think strength is not the real issue. The
: Viet Cong, and the North Vietnamese Army put on a pretty gutsy infantry
: performance with troops (male and female) who were probably smaller on
: average than their opponents. They would have lost, militarily, because
: they were outgunned. Not because they were weak. They won, politically,
Except that they probably wern't fighting by the same rules as their
opponants. Just becuase the Americans outgunned them would not
have assured them of victory (dispite what many American citizens might
like to think). IMHO it's unlikely that the Americans could have won
unless they had intended to create a colony.
: because they were mentally tough and they had the will to fight hard.
Mark Evans
*rem40*@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
:
:
: > What is needed is a standard which is non gender based, a third option
: > rather than the "no women at all" and the AA position of there must be
: > X% of women (and if need be throw out all the standards if that is
: > not being heard here. That of the traditionalist and the (so called) radical
: > feminist are, but the whole thing is not a binary between these two,
: > however certain people might like to think it is...
:
: It won't work you know. You're being rational and reasonable. I've tried
: that approach. Much as I agree with you I think we're going to have to
I used to repeat the argument several times, to people who disagreed.
Now i'm a lot less likely to, especially if they get abusive...
: kill both sides of the argument simply in order to let the middle ground
: be heard.
Russ Moore
In article <5jnh5r$7hs$1...@news.cc.umr.edu>, GINA SOUSAN
<sou...@saucer.cc.umr.edu> drew up a sandbag, started the light swinging
and said
>
>
>That is quite a stretch your making. I suppose it is ONLY the fact of
>women in combat that causes our soldiers to die on the field. You know,
>women weren't in combat during the Vietnam War, but a lot of our soldiers
>were killed and we even lost that war. But, I am sure that people like
>you can find SOME way to blame that on women.
>When I was deployed for Desert Storm, I was 1 out of 2 people sent from
>my shop. Do you know why I was sent? Because I was single and did not
>have any children. I was the only female in the shop, but the married
>guys did not want to leave their families.
>Basically, Bill, women can be an asset to combat. It is just too bad
>that women who want to be in combat have to face opposition from
>uneducated people like you only because of their gender.
To throw in my 2 cents/pennies/centimes/..../ worth IMHO the majority of
opposition to the employment of females in combat roles by serving and
ex-serving memebers is the attitude of 'forced political correctness'
that appears to drive the move.
To expand I joined up in '73 at which time a recruit arrived at his
first unit fully trained. By the mid 80's this had changed to the
recruit having his training completed in the unit. It was seen as
economics having driven to a lowering of standards. During this time
women were in a seperate Corps employed in base area roles; also with a
seperate pay structure.
The 90's arrived and the drive for equality was fashionable, please
remember that for good or bad the military are small c onservative, and
the seperate Corps was abolished an women absorbed into the support
services but not combat arms. There were moves to adopt open house, i.e
all employments in all arms and services would be open. This did not
happen as the rule was maintained that there would be no women in
combat. Also carried over where the different physical standards
required for women.
Here is an example of the problems this caused: In the engineers
everyone has two trades one combat the other artisan. The plan was for
women to be enlisted as engineers but only in non-combat employments.
this was seen as detrimental to moral as the women, who had got in on
lower standards, got the same pay to occupy the trade posts. This had
actually happened at the officer level and caused the women in question
to be reguarded as less than equals for the exact reasons.
Couple this to the obscene payments made to women who left to have
children, which have exceeded war injury payments, and you can imagine
that the proposal to now open the doors is greeted with the idea that
more double standards are being impossed with not concern to the
effects.
The ideal of same standards, same conditions and same employment
opportunities is to be applauded; however it is less policically
acceptable to have female bodies in the bags so you have political
correctness and double standards.
Russ
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| EMail Ru...@verge.demon.co.uk Why can't men get Mad Cow disease? |
| CompuServe - 101721.3135 'Cause all men are PIGS! (ex-)girlfriend |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Moore
In article <33687F...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
*rem40*@csc.canterbury.ac.nz drew up a sandbag, started the light
swinging and said
>
>Mark Evans wrote:
>
>> What is needed is a standard which is non gender based, a third option
>> rather than the "no women at all" and the AA position of there must be
>> X% of women (and if need be throw out all the standards if that is
>> what is needed to get X%). It appears that the POV of the equalitarian is
>> not being heard here. That of the traditionalist and the (so called) radical
>> feminist are, but the whole thing is not a binary between these two,
>> however certain people might like to think it is...
>
>It won't work you know. You're being rational and reasonable. I've tried
>that approach. Much as I agree with you I think we're going to have to
>be heard.
>
The social engineers seem determined to force through the issue without
thought to the praticallities. The gender issue has uncomfortable
parallels to the previous race equality farce. In the UK it is illegal
to operate a quota system, so when racial minorities are under
represented in the forces it is because the forces are racist not that
there was less interest in joining. The forces had the IMO sensible
attitude of not recording race, so ensuring that race could not be taken
into account during paper sifting/selection. That was deemed as racist
because they couldn't monitor (bias) the performance of individuals.
With the issue of women in combat the politicians have been forced a
double standard. Public opinion is more opposed to having women killed,
it also demmands that women have 'equal opportunity'. So we have
seperate entry and qualification standards for women plus they get
excluded from combat. Instead of allowing the military to include women
in the system as is, their inclusion has been made to appear as an
artificial special case.
Not every male can be a jet-jockey, only a small percentage make the
special forces, some men are too small/tall to drive armoured vehicles;
so why must any female who wants to be one of these be given anything
but the same selection ? The answer appears to be sexisism in the
forces, not that in truth the candidates are uninterested or unsuitable.
On the subject of standards the original basic standard when I enlisted
was to complete, a 10 mile forced march (run) as a squad, jump a 9 foot
ditch, scale a 6 foot wall, carry a man of own size and weight 100
meters and fire a 1 inch group at 30 meters, all inside 2 hours. This
was reduced to one and a half miles as a squad in 15 minutes followed by
a second one and a half miles individual effort in times varying with
age. That was for men; women did three quarters of a mile squad and
three quarters individual. This run was done in sports kit, the original
in combat order. It proved not a dammed thing as people who struggled
with the sprint could march with full kit while some of the sprinters
where deadbeats after a few miles when loaded.
Russ Moore
In article <33687B...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
>comments: deal with it. This is an international group, the question is
>not one countries question. The flippant comments about US-type things
>and whatnot are pure atagonistic material. Try and see past it.
It seems to be the US group that have the biggest problem with the idea.
Partly because of the double standards they insist must co-exist. Look
what happened during the Gulf War, women went on active service whilst
the public were feed on child abandonment cases and the cruelty of the
military expecting mothers to go to war.
Yet again the chattering class has seen the bar on women in combat units
are a sexist barrier. They totally ignore that the peacetime
practicallity of including women has absolutly no relevance to
operational service. Then of course there is the curious idea that the
US (military) have about sex. Fratenisation between ranks is a military
offence in practically all armed forces but between the same ranks !!
Same sex sex, same gender sex, (you know what I mean) is outlawed but
only a nation that promotes equality through quotas could imagin that
sex between the opposite sexes should be banned. Second thoughts it
figures as after all the US forces still have prohibition (no alcohol on
ship etc.)
root
My ex brother-in-law, who I now know to be a member of the U. S. secret-
communist movement, was also extremely active in the anti-Vietnam war
movement in the U. S. in the Vietnam era.
It recently occurred to me that what happened to so many U. S. veterans
of the Vietnam War when they returned is exactly the kind of thing that
the U. S. secret communists do to their opponents, and the conclusion
drawn from this is that the U. S. secret communists were exacting revenge
on U. S. soldiers for their Communist Vietnamese comrades.
Given that President Clinton, his entire administration, the Democrats in
Congress and most of our state legislatures, and a growing fraction of
`liberal' Republicans are under the control of the U. S. secret communist
movement, I was wondering how Vietnam veterans and their families feel
to have such enemies of decency running our country. And selling it out
to the Communist Chinese among others.
*re...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
John Beatty wrote:
>
> *rem40*@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
> > Should women be accepted for combat
> > roles _if_they_happen_to_want_to_do_them? No, but if they met the
> > requirements of the role there is no reason to further deny them the
> > chance to be shot like everybody else.
>
> Here's a reason: Women can volunteer--CHOOSE--to go into combat. Men,
> ont the other hand, CANNOT CHOOSE NOT TO.
I'm not proposing this. I'm not talking about any one countries
particualr situation, I'm only interested in the rationale behind the
arguments for and against the issue.
As far as I'm concerned if someone chooses to take on a combat role then
they go with the task of that role. EOS. See, no statement about sex,
none about opting out, and nothing about anything other than what I
said.
Please try and read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote and try to
stay above petty US domestic politics.
> No, not all women would do that, but enough would that would leave a
> distinctly bad taste in the mouth.
Ah, you sepak for most (some? a few?) women do you? Aain, you're making
a judgement that says more about your views and opinions that about
reality. Let's just stay in reality.
> And spare us the bilge about "the
> next war will be too fast..." because of the abundant counterexamples in
> the past decade.
Tell you what, you stop trying to put words in my mouth and read what I
wrote and I won't assume you're just another fucked up moronic gimp with
no dick that can't carry on a rational conversation, shall we?
Oh, see, it annoys when others make baseless value judgements, doesn't
it? So let's just be rational. You were doing so well.
*re...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
ad...@poboxes.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 01 May 1997 23:14:18 +1200, *rem40*@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
> Did I miss a post somewhere? Is there some reason that you are posting from
> a New Zealand address but never seem to speak of the attributes of your
> armed forces. But frequently loud the alleged accomplishments of armies the
> US has, or could kicked the shit out of any day of the week and a couple of
> times on Saturday mornings...? Tell us of one armed force that exist in the
> world today that unfettered, the US couldn't plow under in two weeks of
> combat...Hurry up! we're waiting!
China.
Happy?
> Now for the rest of your ravings...You're looking like a blow hard. Further
> more you have yet to demonstrate that you posses the intelligence required
> to piss the BULLS off here...what's likely to happen is you'll keep
> fooling around and end up getting the HORN! Better be careful, boy ;-)
>
> Adam
Aww, shucks, [scuffs toe] you're just annoyed because you don't
understand how to argue (in the philosophical sense) rationally, aren't
you? maybe if you tried to discuss this instead of the tangential
threats you'd get somewhere. Would you like me to stop using big words?
I can tone it down for you if your mommy hasn't taught you big words
yet. Maybe if I can't 'piss the bulls off here' I can settle for you?
Or, for the adult version:
Bite me, sweetums.
> P.S. You wouldn't be one of those kung fu guys would you...I just get a
> feeling that you'd like to talk that kind of talk.
Now what makes you say that?
tengai no ko kayku
*re...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
ad...@poboxes.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 01 May 1997 23:25:59 +1200, *rem40*@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>
> >ad...@poboxes.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 23:01:14 +1200, *rem40*@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
> >> >If you abrogate those very same things in order to protect them you sort
> >> >of defeat the whole point of it. Don't you agree? ;)
>
> Obviously you have no knowledge of the responsibilities associated with
> waging a war or you wouldn't ask that question. If you're not firing the
> weapons you better be prepared to do some loading. But then being a subject
> rather than a citizens you wouldn't know anything about that...would you.
Nice attempt at a wind-up. About the level of a ten year old, which is
pretty good for you from what I've seen so far.
Now, if you'd care to answer my question: how and why should you
abbrogate something in order to protect that very same thing? You claim
to be proteting rights, but the rights you're advocating are a
impositionally imposed set of selective rights. Is that worth
protecting?Should I use smaller words for you?
> >> Since you little island nation has never fielded an effective fighting
> >> force I doubt that much will be thought of the opinion of one of its
> >> insignificant blow-hards.
> >
> >Ah, sweetums, can't deal with dissension? My heart bleeds for your lack
> >of ability to be tolerant. I'm glad you said effective, as opposed to
> >large, for, again, I know that history proves you wrong. After all, it
> >wasn't New Zealand that screwed up the Italian campaign was it now?
> >(Hello, Mark Clark ;)
>
> Sweetums? How swishy of you to say so...I'll bet you're one of NZ's major
> advocates of same sex marriage. Your rhetoric has that ring to it....You'll
> be vacationing in Hawaii this year won't you...want to be there for the big
> announcement I'll bet.
What would be wrong with same sex mariages? Oh, and your allusions to
homosexuality aren't that inciteful; try someone less assured of their
sexuality. You shouldn't have to look further than your own terminal.
> As far as the Italian campaign goes...A one man show! Patton kicked ass!
> And that Included the Brit, Montgomery's too.
Excepting that Patton wasn't in Italy, not bad.Sort of lacks in bite
because you're wrong, but hey, most of your posts like that.
Wanna actually discuss this subject or do you just like the sight of
your own typing?
> >> Don't come to an axe fight arm with a book on political correctness.
> >
> >Me?! Politically correct?! <snigger> It may come as a shock to you, for
> >in your limited way you seem only to perceive dissension as PCness, but
> >my interest is purely on the basis of rationality. I argue for a living,
> >I present and evaluate arguments. Most of the ones I've seen here on
> >this subject suck the big one. You don't fit that category because you
> >haven't actually said anything other than for irrational ranting.
>
> I've yet to see true dissention, I find _your_ argument more along the line
> of something one doesn't want to step in. As far as rationality in your
> thought...if that is your interest then you, my man, have quite a ways to
> go, you're not even up to your ankles yet.
Ah, well, I'm not the one spending an entire post ranting at the speaker
instead of the subject, am I now? Unlike yourself.
But hey, I can do the flamefest routine if you want to play that. It's
dull, but if that's what takes your fancy.
> Your evaluative language regarding the capabilities of others who post here
> is certainly interesting: "Most of the ones I've seen here on this subject
> suck the big one." Now that's an unusual metaphor, but it does fit in with
> the "Sweetums" you used before. If the shoe fits...
Gotta aim the language for the audience. At least you understood it,
whih I was sooo worried you wouldn't. I'm still waiting for you to post
a reply to my answer on the actual question. The abuse thing is a bit
passe.
> >re...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Oh, get_over_ it! Sue me for all I care.
>
> You think someone cares?
You keep replying.
> I'm outta here!
>
> Adam
*Gosh* I'm heartbroken. Back to actual discussion then. Finally.
*re...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Russ Moore wrote:
>
> In article <33687B...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
> *rem40*@csc.canterbury.ac.nz drew up a sandbag, started the light
> swinging and said
> >
> >For those of you in the US reading this who are incensed by some of my
> >comments: deal with it. This is an international group, the question is
> >not one countries question. The flippant comments about US-type things
> >and whatnot are pure atagonistic material. Try and see past it.
>
> It seems to be the US group that have the biggest problem with the idea.
I'd, umm, 'noticed'. ;)
> Partly because of the double standards they insist must co-exist. Look
> what happened during the Gulf War, women went on active service whilst
> the public were feed on child abandonment cases and the cruelty of the
> military expecting mothers to go to war.
What continues to surprise me is the amazing way people (in the US)
react when someone points out the illogical nature of a given
standpoint. I don't know why the US doesn't scrap all it's laws (esp.
that god-awful constitution) and start from scratch.
> Yet again the chattering class has seen the bar on women in combat units
> are a sexist barrier.
I tend to agree with them, but not for the reasons they rant upon. And
the anti-brigade are just such easy targets that I don't see how they
stay in as a powerful viewpoint.
> They totally ignore that the peacetime
> practicallity of including women has absolutly no relevance to
> operational service.
It can be allowed for. And if it were to occur I should think it would
be sensible to do just that, but that's the thing, I could foresee a
situation where units are intergrated but no provision or thought being
given to the operational side of things. Then, when everything fails in
time of need, the anti-brigade get say, "Told you so". Silly really.
Ford
I don't think even Oliver Stone could turn this drivel into a movie.
F. Prefect
Not everyone can be smart, but no one needs to revel in
igonrance. Except of course, republicans........
For them it's a job requirement.
Gwen Nelson
Organization: Alternate Access Inc. - Affordable, Reliable Internet Access
Distribution:
Ford (ga...@dialnet.nett) wrote:
: On 5 May 97 02:36:30 GMT, ro...@tailor.aleim.net (root) wrote:
: >My ex brother-in-law, who I now know to be a member of the U. S. secret-
: >communist movement, was also extremely active in the anti-Vietnam war
: >movement in the U. S. in the Vietnam era.
: >
: >It recently occurred to me that what happened to so many U. S. veterans
: >of the Vietnam War when they returned is exactly the kind of thing that
: >the U. S. secret communists do to their opponents, and the conclusion
: >drawn from this is that the U. S. secret communists were exacting revenge
: >on U. S. soldiers for their Communist Vietnamese comrades.
: >
: >Given that President Clinton, his entire administration, the Democrats in
: >Congress and most of our state legislatures, and a growing fraction of
: >`liberal' Republicans are under the control of the U. S. secret communist
: >movement, I was wondering how Vietnam veterans and their families feel
: >to have such enemies of decency running our country. And selling it out
: >to the Communist Chinese among others.
: >
: I don't think even Oliver Stone could turn this drivel into a movie.
: F. Prefect
: Not everyone can be smart, but no one needs to revel in
: igonrance. Except of course, republicans........
: For them it's a job requirement.
--
Sounds more like a David Lynch plot to me.
GN
Ed T
root wrote:
>
> My ex brother-in-law, who I now know to be a member of the U. S. secret-
> communist movement, was also extremely active in the anti-Vietnam war
> movement in the U. S. in the Vietnam era.
>
> It recently occurred to me that what happened to so many U. S. veterans
> of the Vietnam War when they returned is exactly the kind of thing that
> the U. S. secret communists do to their opponents, and the conclusion
> drawn from this is that the U. S. secret communists were exacting revenge
> on U. S. soldiers for their Communist Vietnamese comrades.
>
> Given that President Clinton, his entire administration, the Democrats in
> Congress and most of our state legislatures, and a growing fraction of
> `liberal' Republicans are under the control of the U. S. secret communist
> movement, I was wondering how Vietnam veterans and their families feel
> to have such enemies of decency running our country. And selling it out
> to the Communist Chinese among others.
Answer me just three questions ===
If your brother was or is a "secret" communist, how do you know that he
was or is one? Secret means that the fact is not known.
Perhaps you are a mind reader?
Or maybe you just make up drivel and post it on internet newsgroups?
Ed T
root wrote:
>
> My ex brother-in-law, who I now know to be a member of the U. S. secret-
> communist movement, was also extremely active in the anti-Vietnam war
> movement in the U. S. in the Vietnam era.
>
> It recently occurred to me that what happened to so many U. S. veterans
> of the Vietnam War when they returned is exactly the kind of thing that
> the U. S. secret communists do to their opponents, and the conclusion
> drawn from this is that the U. S. secret communists were exacting revenge
> on U. S. soldiers for their Communist Vietnamese comrades.
>
> Given that President Clinton, his entire administration, the Democrats in
> Congress and most of our state legislatures, and a growing fraction of
> `liberal' Republicans are under the control of the U. S. secret communist
> movement, I was wondering how Vietnam veterans and their families feel
> to have such enemies of decency running our country. And selling it out
> to the Communist Chinese among others.
Answer me just one question ===
Ed T
> Re: Women should not go...
Neither should men!!!!!!!!!
But since we do, we should be the best trained, best equipped, most
professional MILITARY PEOPLE in the world.