To all you soldiers out there...
Ian
How do you feel that the useless women who work alongside you get paid
the same, yet they will never die in combat? Why do you think Tony
Blair pays them the same? Is it the same reason that Patricia Hewitt
thinks women should be allowed to see how much you men earn?
Don't you think you deserve more money than them? After all you may
die in battle, you should be paid more. Women never die in battle.
Also, if women ever were to be alongside you in battle, and you got
shot, then like it or not they'd just have to leave you, because as
recent army tests proved, women just can't pick men up.
Tony Blair knows this but pays you all the same.
I'd leave the army and get a job somewhere else if I were you.
Jen Larson
Ian wrote:
> Also, if women ever were to be alongside you in battle, and you got
> shot, then like it or not they'd just have to leave you, because as
> recent army tests proved, women just can't pick men up.
Every time I see war footage of people getting carried there is more
than one person carrying them. Show where it is a standard that you must
be able to carry a man by yourself and you may have a point.
Freedom
can you see anything different?
"Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3C8DFF0F...@udel.edu...
Michael Snyder
Ian wrote in message ...
>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPentagon.asp?Page=%5CPentagon%5Carchive%5C200203%5CPEN20020311a.html
>
>How do you feel that the useless women who work alongside you get paid
>the same, yet they will never die in combat?
Are you implying that a soldier's only purpose is to die in combat?
> Why do you think Tony
>Blair pays them the same? Is it the same reason that Patricia Hewitt
>thinks women should be allowed to see how much you men earn?
Probably.
>Don't you think you deserve more money than them? After all you may
>die in battle, you should be paid more. Women never die in battle.
What price can you put on that? Treating soldiering as just another
job may be part of the problem. If we created a system whereby we
guaranteed that EVERY soldier had a real, and equal, chance of
dying in combat (and we emphatically advertised that fact), we might
have fewer women wanting to be soldiers.
>Also, if women ever were to be alongside you in battle, and you got
>shot, then like it or not they'd just have to leave you, because as
>recent army tests proved, women just can't pick men up.
I do believe that women would feel less compulsion to rescue a
fallen male comrade than vice versa (or even than men feel to
rescue each other). It isn't as much in their wiring to risk
themselves to save a non-relative as it is for men.
>Tony Blair knows this but pays you all the same.
I think associating these things with pay scale is a mistake.
>I'd leave the army and get a job somewhere else if I were you.
You probably should.
White~Dragon ®
You have been watching too much TV.
Parg2000
>From: dra...@hotmail.com (Ian)
>Date: 3/12/02 4:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <d33ce629.02031...@posting.google.com>
>
>
>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPentagon.asp?Page=%5CPentagon%5Carchive%5C2002
03%5CPEN20020311a.html
>
>How do you feel that the useless women who work alongside you get paid
>the same, yet they will never die in combat?
{Parg} If he is working next to women, it is obvious that neither of them will
"have to" die in combat. Perhaps you are trying to belittle women for the
mostly male military making policy to keep them out. Shameful, really.
Why do you think Tony Blair pays them the same?
{Parg} They do the same job, but are denied the same rights, one of them being
the right to sign on for combat duty. IOW, it's not military men who have the
right to complain, it's military women. The men have the right to apply for
any military position.
Is it the same reason that Patricia Hewitt thinks women should be allowed to
see how much you men earn?
>
{Parg} Women have eyes; they certainly have the right to use them. <G> And,
in the end, women already know where the bodies are buried; they just want the
law to support digging them up to look at them. <G>
>Don't you think you deserve more money than them?
{Parg} For doing the same job and having greater military rights. Nah.
After all you may>die in battle, you should be paid more. Women never die in
battle.
>
{Parg} It is not the fault of women that men have denied them rights. Women
have corrected most of those issues already, by having the right to vote, the
right to make decisions that effect their own bodies, and the right to own
property, attend schools, etc.
Now the military rights women pursue are some of the last vestiges of
patriarchy. Don't worry, bitter boys; it's just a matter of time.
>Also, if women ever were to be alongside you in battle, and you got>shot, then
like it or not they'd just have to leave you, because as
>recent army tests proved, women just can't pick men up.
>
{Parg} Just like it usually takes two men to pick up one, the same applies to
women. In the end, we don't disallow small men from the military. <G> Grow
up fellers; your day is done.
>Tony Blair knows this but pays you all the same.
{Parg} Tony Blair is an egalitarian; he understands quite well that smaller
men are not disqualified from military duty.
>
>I'd leave the army and get a job somewhere else if I were you.
{Parg} But you're not. You're a sexist. We all know that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jen Larson
Freedom wrote:
> Jen - put a man beside you naked, and both look into the mirror together,
> can you see anything different?
Several things. What is your point?
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C8DFF0F...@udel.edu...
> > Every time I see war footage of people getting carried there is more
> > than one person carrying them. Show where it is a standard that you must
> > be able to carry a man by yourself and you may have a point.
> You have been watching too much TV.
No, but I watch history channel with my dad when I go visit him. I
remember what I see.
Ian
Because by the time the cameras get there moron, all the people have died.
Jen Larson
Ian wrote:
>
> Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message news:<3C8DFF0F...@udel.edu>...
> > Every time I see war footage of people getting carried there is more
> > than one person carrying them. Show where it is a standard that you must
> > be able to carry a man by yourself and you may have a point.
> Because by the time the cameras get there moron, all the people have died.
No, I saw footage from WWII where there was an active battle going on
and TWO men ran out to help ONE man behind cover. Saw it dude, plain as
day, not one of the three was dead. Now, show where in order to be
combat accepted you need to be able to carry an avg. sized man by
yourself out of a combat zone.
Mark Borgerson
Michael Snyder wrote:
>
> Ian wrote in message ...
> >http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPentagon.asp?Page=%5CPentagon%5Carchive%5C200203%5CPEN20020311a.html
> >
> >How do you feel that the useless women who work alongside you get paid
> >the same, yet they will never die in combat?
>
> Are you implying that a soldier's only purpose is to die in combat?
Wasn't it Patton who said (roughly) "Your job is not to die for your
country, but to make the other SOB die for his!"
>
> > Why do you think Tony
> >Blair pays them the same? Is it the same reason that Patricia Hewitt
> >thinks women should be allowed to see how much you men earn?
>
> Probably.
>
> >Don't you think you deserve more money than them? After all you may
> >die in battle, you should be paid more. Women never die in battle.
Has the modern military quit giving more pay for duty in a combat zone?
IIRC, soldiers in a combat zone are excused from certain state and
federal taxes on their pay?
>
> What price can you put on that? Treating soldiering as just another
> job may be part of the problem. If we created a system whereby we
> guaranteed that EVERY soldier had a real, and equal, chance of
> dying in combat (and we emphatically advertised that fact), we might
> have fewer women wanting to be soldiers.
>
Well, the scud attack on the barracks in the Gulf War definitely
showed that modern warfare can cause casualties well away from
the front lines. Add in the possibility of nuclear, chemical,
and biological weapons, and the odds of death in the military
are starting to even out quite a bit amongst those in the front
lines and the rear areas. After all, who'd of thought working
in the Pentagon would put you at risk for more than a paper cut!
<<SNIP>>
Mark Borgerson
Ian
Is that the same footage you see every time? Because if it isn't look
further up the post to your own words. You said everytime. Clearly you
are talking bollocks.
Jen Larson
Ian wrote:
>
> Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message news:<3C8E601D...@udel.edu>...
> > and TWO men ran out to help ONE man behind cover. Saw it dude, plain as
> > day, not one of the three was dead. Now, show where in order to be
> > combat accepted you need to be able to carry an avg. sized man by
> > yourself out of a combat zone.
> Is that the same footage you see every time? Because if it isn't look
> further up the post to your own words. You said everytime. Clearly you
> are talking bollocks.
Until you show me that standard that says all combatants must be able to
carry an average man out of the combat area you're blowin out your ass.
White~Dragon ®
In combat there will be many times when you may have to carry someone and
yourself
to a safety zone.
Do you really think they allow combat corrspondants in to serious fire fight
area?
Or into an 'all out battle zone'? Where commanders expect heavy US
casualties?
What you see on TV (the history channel) is somewhat real.
But these micky mouse photographers are not allowed to go into the serious
fighting/combat zones.
Nor do they want to go.
They are kept in medium risk areas(where the US has a clear advantage)
and told to shoot what will put US forces in a positive light with out
showing
"too much" US troup blood shead.
Occasionally they will get some battle shots.
Which will be played over and over in several different shows.
There has never been one single journalist droped into a hot zone by chopper
or an airborn drop.
There has never been one single journalist on a long range recon mission.
There has never been one single journalist accompany a sniper patrol.
There has never been one single journalist accompany a Ranger Squad.
There has never been one single journalist in any serious battle.
They are usually kept in the rear with the gear.
But i do like the history channel :)
~wd
`
White~Dragon ®
If you believe that there will never be a time when you may have to carry
yourself and another person out of a combat zone where you are getting your
ass kicked --
You are not as smart as i thought you were Jen.
~wd
White~Dragon ®
"Parg2000" <parg...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20020312110648...@mb-fd.news.cs.com...
Making this a "sexist" "feminist" issue will only get young men and women
killed.
Why cant you feminist bitches see, this is one thing you need to back off on
for the good of everyone.
~wd
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
White~Dragon ®
The "standard" is the basic combat training!
The same training women are failing.
~wd
Mark Borgerson
There were a couple of reporters in the first waves of the D-Day
landings, IIRC. I think there was even one women reporter
that stowed away in the head on a hospital ship and got
ashore sometime the first day. The military HAS been a lot
more reluctant to allow reporters close to the front since
Vietnam where:
"With such freedom, members of the press followed individual units
through the Vietnamese countryside, often returning with strikingly
personal accounts of the war. But the coverage came at a cost.
In all, 148 newspeople were killed while on duty covering the
war. Scouring the battlefield for stories, reporters like Terry lived
with the fear that at any moment they could become the next
statistic."
From: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/vietnam/journalists.html
I suspect that some of those journalists were inserted into
hot LZs in Vietnam.
So far, we've lost less than a half-dozen reporters in Afghanistan
(plus one in Pakistan). Three reporters were killed in one
Taliban ambush a few months ago. There were reporters on scene
at the prison riot that lead to the death of a CIA agent---but
they were hustled away by US special forces.
The military does have some good reasons for keeping reporters a
bit further back now. In the past they could better control
communications. Now, with satellite phones, the military has
little control over correspondent comms.
Mark Borgerson
Ian
I don't need to. Are you saying if you'd go into battle, just the two
of you, you'd be happy to know that if you were injured and unable to
walk, you'd die.
You may Jen be able to turn around and say there's no standard that
requires this, I know very little of the US military (apart from its
history) however, talk is cheap.
You say there's no standard, there could easily be a standard to pick
up and carry a 210 lb man plus kit, say 500 metres, but it would prove
once and for all that women are just a liability on the battlefield.
Thus feminists, like yourself continue to maintain that there is no
need to be able to do that, because you like to hide behind rules.
Writing as a man with self respect, hiding behind rules is just a sign
that one is an incomplete human being.
I have no problem at all with people who say, "I'm just not good
enough, and never will be." They aren't trying to be something they
aren't. They realise it, and often then realise people are doing them
a big favour which requires them to owe a debt of honour.
I do have a problem with people who say, nay force, the rules to be
changed because they can't manage to pass them and cannot cope with
their own failure. It's a sign you weren't brought up properly. The
net effect of dilution of standards or requirements (whether written
or implicit) is someone else's life in these cases. They feel they are
then in the organisation on their own merits, but whatever the entry
tests the job requirements have not changed, someone still has to do
the work. These people are then shirkers.
We already know that feminism either does not care about sacrificing
children's lives for its cause. It is clear it cares about noone apart
from women.
Feminism hides behind rules. It forces them to be written, so it can
exploit the ambiguity of the English Language to its own advantage.
Its like tax evasion, but against one's _own_ country which is
unforgiveable. It is a moralless slag.
As you are fond of saying in the States. Is the view good from the
cheap seats?
White~Dragon ®
"Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C8EC8ED...@attbi.com...
These were not sanctioned by the military.
The military HAS been a lot
> more reluctant to allow reporters close to the front since
> Vietnam where:
>
> "With such freedom, members of the press followed individual units
> through the Vietnamese countryside, often returning with strikingly
> personal accounts of the war. But the coverage came at a cost.
> In all, 148 newspeople were killed while on duty covering the
> war. Scouring the battlefield for stories, reporters like Terry lived
> with the fear that at any moment they could become the next
> statistic."
These were medium risk patrols in areas US troups has an advantage.
Of course,they did get some good footage of battles and fire fights.
And few of them were civilian, most were army reporters.
But this is hardly being droped into an hot LZ where the US did not have an
advantage and serious fighting,death and latter extraction of wounded were
needed.
(which is what we are talking about)
Women being able to carry a man by her self to safety.
>
> From: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/vietnam/journalists.html
>
> I suspect that some of those journalists were inserted into
> hot LZs in Vietnam.
>
Not on any i was droped into.
And i remember them wanting to go, but being left at base camp.
You ASSume wrong.
> So far, we've lost less than a half-dozen reporters in Afghanistan
> (plus one in Pakistan). Three reporters were killed in one
> Taliban ambush a few months ago. There were reporters on scene
> at the prison riot that lead to the death of a CIA agent---but
> they were hustled away by US special forces.
>
> The military does have some good reasons for keeping reporters a
> bit further back now. In the past they could better control
> communications. Now, with satellite phones, the military has
> little control over correspondent comms.
The military has plenty of control.
One word and they can all be packed up and sent home.
>
> Mark Borgerson
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
>
> "Parg2000" <parg...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:20020312110648...@mb-fd.news.cs.com...
> Making this a "sexist" "feminist" issue will only get young men and women
> killed.
> Why cant you feminist bitches see, this is one thing you need to back off on
> for the good of everyone.
No fucking way. I am raising my daughters to be strong and instilling
them with honor and integrity and an appreciation for the freedoms they
enjoy. I expect them to participate in the military and own weapons for
the purpose of defending themselves and the country without hesitation
if the need arises. I support drafting them for combat should the need
arise and they will go without a peep, just like I would have and will
today if it lands on my beach. And WD, you are "lucky" that I feel that
way I am going to do my part no matter what.
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
>
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C8E4DC3...@udel.edu...
> In combat there will be many times when you may have to carry someone and
> yourself
> to a safety zone.
then it should be a physical requirement to be able to carry a man a few
miles in order to qualify as a combatant.
> Do you really think they allow combat corrspondants in to serious fire fight
> area?
It was a fire-fight, that is for sure, it wasn't not serious.
> Or into an 'all out battle zone'? Where commanders expect heavy US
> casualties?
> What you see on TV (the history channel) is somewhat real.
Well this footage was real.
> But i do like the history channel :)
It's cool. I would watch it if I had any channels other than 4 :)
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C8E9678...@udel.edu...
> > Until you show me that standard that says all combatants must be able to
> > carry an average man out of the combat area you're blowin out your ass.
> The "standard" is the basic combat training!
> The same training women are failing.
What women are being combat trained?
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
>
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C8E601D...@udel.edu...
> If you believe that there will never be a time when you may have to carry
> yourself and another person out of a combat zone where you are getting your
> ass kicked --
> You are not as smart as i thought you were Jen.
So, this is a physical standard that is tested for in the military? If
it is required, then I suppose it must be.
Jen Larson
Ian wrote:
>
> Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message news:<3C8E9678...@udel.edu>...
> > Until you show me that standard that says all combatants must be able to
> > carry an average man out of the combat area you're blowin out your ass.
> I don't need to.
Because you have a perfectly good ass to blow shit out of.
Are you saying if you'd go into battle, just the two
> of you, you'd be happy to know that if you were injured and unable to
> walk, you'd die.
Now name the battle where only two show up from the US.
> You may Jen be able to turn around and say there's no standard that
> requires this, I know very little of the US military (apart from its
> history) however, talk is cheap.
You sure as hell have no clue at all about the US Military.
> You say there's no standard, there could easily be a standard to pick
> up and carry a 210 lb man plus kit, say 500 metres, but it would prove
> once and for all that women are just a liability on the battlefield.
Or, you could just pull some stupid piece of shit out of your ass say
it's necessary and only men can do it but they are not tested because
they are men and are thusly immediately qualified.
> Thus feminists, like yourself continue to maintain that there is no
> need to be able to do that, because you like to hide behind rules.
No, there is a definite structure in place when discussing the US
Military and the training is comprehensive and well planned and thought
out.
> Writing as a man with self respect, hiding behind rules is just a sign
> that one is an incomplete human being.
Making up rules must be such a better thing. Oh to be a man and to be
able to declare reality and have that be that.
> I have no problem at all with people who say, "I'm just not good
> enough, and never will be." They aren't trying to be something they
> aren't. They realise it, and often then realise people are doing them
> a big favour which requires them to owe a debt of honour.
I have no problem at all with people who say that either.
> I do have a problem with people who say, nay force, the rules to be
> changed because they can't manage to pass them and cannot cope with
> their own failure. It's a sign you weren't brought up properly.
I can agree with that, however I have never seen a shred of evidence
that in my life a combatant in the US military has had to carry a man as
a standard of entrance. I could be wrong but I have just never seen any
type of information to think it is so.
The
> net effect of dilution of standards or requirements (whether written
> or implicit) is someone else's life in these cases. They feel they are
> then in the organisation on their own merits, but whatever the entry
> tests the job requirements have not changed, someone still has to do
> the work. These people are then shirkers.
If they can't do the job as outlined and perform to standards that are
relevant to their final billet then I say wash them out or into a
different billet, I do not agree that women should be excluded based on
sex.
> We already know that feminism either does not care about sacrificing
> children's lives for its cause. It is clear it cares about noone apart
> from women.
Bastards.
> Feminism hides behind rules. It forces them to be written, so it can
> exploit the ambiguity of the English Language to its own advantage.
> Its like tax evasion, but against one's _own_ country which is
> unforgiveable. It is a moralless slag.
What is unforgivable is being judged on your sex before having any other
information. That is pathetic and sick and would make you a sexist
bastard idiot from hell.
Mark Borgerson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
<<SNIP>>
> These were medium risk patrols in areas US troups has an advantage.
> Of course,they did get some good footage of battles and fire fights.
> And few of them were civilian, most were army reporters.
>
> But this is hardly being droped into an hot LZ where the US did not have an
> advantage and serious fighting,death and latter extraction of wounded were
> needed.
> (which is what we are talking about)
> Women being able to carry a man by her self to safety.
>
> >
> > From: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/vietnam/journalists.html
> >
> > I suspect that some of those journalists were inserted into
> > hot LZs in Vietnam.
> >
>
> Not on any i was droped into.
> And i remember them wanting to go, but being left at base camp.
> You ASSume wrong.
I will defer to your first-hand experience. But I still wonder if
your experience covered all the possible instances. However, it
is very possible that much of the footage I saw at the time was
taken by Army photographers with voice-over by the civilian
reporters.
>
> > So far, we've lost less than a half-dozen reporters in Afghanistan
> > (plus one in Pakistan). Three reporters were killed in one
> > Taliban ambush a few months ago. There were reporters on scene
> > at the prison riot that lead to the death of a CIA agent---but
> > they were hustled away by US special forces.
> >
> > The military does have some good reasons for keeping reporters a
> > bit further back now. In the past they could better control
> > communications. Now, with satellite phones, the military has
> > little control over correspondent comms.
>
> The military has plenty of control.
> One word and they can all be packed up and sent home.
This is in direct contradiction to what I've heard. I heard
one reporter (in a discussion concerning the ambushed reporters)
say that Afghanistan was essentially an open country over which
the US military had minimal control. Only when the reporters
actually try to get into US bases or mingle with US troops
in the countryside, does the US have any control over the
movement of the reporters. I think this is especially true
of reporters from other nations.
Mark Borgerson
Chris Raum
Your well intentioned and noble feelings not withstanding, Jen, by
coincidence, one o' my favourite Internet columnists had the following to
say about female combat troops on his very latest column...
Oh and, uh, heh heh. I restored the alt.feminism newsgroup to the header
that Porky Worstall/Hemingway deleted so that the branch of this thread
isn't censored from that group (for those of you who find this sort of
censorship wrong, looks like Mark Borgerson, the Big Daddy Sir Galahad
feminist of the group, is doing the same thing on this thread).
As related:
http://www.Fredoneverything.net/MilMed.html
Women In Combat
Facts From A Closet
©Fred Reed 2002
Occasionally I have written that placing women in physically demanding jobs
in the military, as for example combat, is stupid and unworkable.
Predictably I've gotten responses asserting that I hate women, abuse
children, cannibalize orphans, and can't get a date. A few, with truculence
sometimes amplified by misspelling, have demanded supporting data.
OK. The following are from documents I found in a closet, left over from my
days as a syndicated military columnist ("Soldiering," Universal Press
Syndicate). Note the dates: All of this has been known for a long time.
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in
the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by
Brassey's in 1993): "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter,
31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of
fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body
strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength. An Army study of 124 men
and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to
suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress]
fractures as men."
Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the
physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as
follows:
"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry
as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the
level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same
aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."
From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified
before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC
Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. .Evidence Gregor presented
to the Commission includes:
"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper
quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to
the bottom quintile of men.
"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to
the male mean score of 260.
"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of
60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent
of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their
junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and
not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.."
The following, quoted by Brian Mitchell in his book Women in the Military:
Flirting With Disaster (Regnery, 1998) and widely known to students of the
military, are results of a test the Navy did to see how well women could
perform in damage control -- i.e., tasks necessary to save a ship that had
been hit.
"Test ............................................% Women failing
............% Men failing
....................................................Before training /After
....Before training/After
Stretcher carry, level
......................63%..........38%.............0%...............0
Stretcher carry/up, down ladder
....94%...........88%.............0%...............0
Fire hose ........................................19 .............16
...............0 .................0
P250 pump, carry down .................99 ... .........99
...............9..................4
P250 pump, carry up ......................73 ..... .......52
...............0 .................0
P250, start pump ............................90 .............75
...............0 .................0
Remove SSTO pump .....................99 .............99
...............0..................0
Torque engine bolt ..........................78 ..... .......47
...............0 .................0"
Our ships can be hit. I know what supersonic stealthed cruise missiles are.
So do the Iraqis.
Also from the Commission's report: "Non-deployability briefings before the
Commission showed that women were three times more non-deployable than men,
primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm.
According to Navy Captain Martha Whitehead's testimony before the
Commission, 'the primary reason for the women being unable to deploy was
pregnancy, that representing 47 percent of the women who could not deploy.'"
Maybe we need armored strollers.
My friend Catherine Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and (no, I'm not on
drugs) enlisted in the Army in 1995. Her account was published in Reader's
Digest, February, 1999, and is online in the Digest's archives.
She told me the following about her experiences: "I was stunned. The Army
was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers using it as a
welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the
men. I found I couldn't. It wasn't even close. I had no idea the difference
in physical ability was so huge. There were always crowds of women sitting
out exercises or on crutches from training injuries.
"They [the Army] were so scared of sexual harassment that women weren't
allowed to go anywhere without another woman along. They called them 'Battle
Buddies.' It was crazy. I was twenty-six years old but I couldn't go to the
bathroom by myself."
Women are going to take on the North Korean infantry, but need protection in
the ladies' room. Military policy is endlessly fascinating.
When I was writing the military column, I looked into the experience of
Canada, which tried the experiment of feminization. I got the report from
Ottawa, as did the Commission. Said the Commission:
"After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to support the
integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian women who
volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the initial training
course. The Canadian experience corroborates the testimony of LTC Gregor,
who said the odds of selecting a woman matching the physical size and
strength of the average male are more than 130-to-1.
From Military Medicine, October 1997, which I got from the Pentagon's
library:
(p. 690): "One-third of 450 female soldiers surveyed indicated that they
experienced problematic urinary incontinence during exercise and field
training activities. The other crucial finding of the survey was probably
that 13.3% of the respondents restricted fluids significantly while
participating in field exercises." Because peeing was embarrassing.
Or, (p. 661): " Kessler et al found that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in
the United States was twice as high among women."Depression, says MilMed, is
far commoner among women, as are training injuries. Et cetera.
The military is perfectly aware of all of this. Their own magazine has told
them. They see it every day. But protecting careers, and rears, is more
important than protecting the country.
Anyway, for those who wanted supporting evidence, there it is.
Mark Borgerson
Sorry. Guilty as charged. I usually limit my replies to soc.men, as it
is the group I read. However, I will, in the future, also leave in the
first group in the list, as I think that indicates the group in which
the thread originated. (is this true?).
Is it right to assume that people who post to multiple groups also
read all the groups? If so, they have more free time than me!
We knights are too busy rescuing the fair damsels! ;-)
(Real feminists don't allow themselves to be rescued---they
suit up in their own armor! ;-) )
Mark Borgerson
Rich Soyack
No, real feminist demand that you put on your armor to defend them and
then accuse you of being violent.
Rich Soyack
Mark Borgerson
Chris Raum wrote:
>
<<SNIP>>
Do you discard the bottom quintile of men or accept the top quintile of
women??
>
> "(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to
> the male mean score of 260.
>
> "(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of
> 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
So make the 7% eligble for combat jobs. Put the rest in a non-combat job--
with the 22 percent of men, I suppose.
>
> "(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent
> of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their
> junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and
> not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.."
Are the Recondo badge and Physical Fitness badges required for combat duty??
>
> The following, quoted by Brian Mitchell in his book Women in the Military:
> Flirting With Disaster (Regnery, 1998) and widely known to students of the
> military, are results of a test the Navy did to see how well women could
> perform in damage control -- i.e., tasks necessary to save a ship that had
> been hit.
That all sounds like good arguments for accepting the women who meet
who meet whatever standards required for men to be accepted
for combat duty. They shouldn't then be any more of a problem
than the lowest-performing men.
<<SNIP>>
The Navy study looked interesting---but the formatting was trashed
for me. Is there an online copy of that study??
I suppose that the services could learn to live with uniform
physical standards as they have learned to live with uniform
mental standards (some services used to require women to have
higher ASVAB scores than men for the same programs). However
I suspect that recruiting would still be a problem. See
http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/working_papers/wp_00-1.pdf
for a description of some of the problems. One of them is
that a lot of very fit athletes get rejected because of upper
body mobility standards. Another reason for rejection is
having laser eye surgery to correct vision problems.
Mark Borgerson
Rich Soyack
Which ever better meets the mission of the Army.
> >
> > "(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal
to
> > the male mean score of 260.
> >
> > "(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score
of
> > 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
>
> So make the 7% eligble for combat jobs. Put the rest in a non-combat
job--
> with the 22 percent of men, I suppose.
> >
> > "(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70
percent
> > of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of
their
> > junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge,
and
> > not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.."
>
> Are the Recondo badge and Physical Fitness badges required for combat
duty??
Are you saying that its not necessary to be physically fit to be in combat?
Rich Soyack
Jen Larson
Chris Raum wrote:
>
> Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C8F51FD...@udel.edu...
> > way I am going to do my part no matter what.
> Your well intentioned and noble feelings not withstanding, Jen, by
> coincidence, one o' my favourite Internet columnists had the following to
> say about female combat troops on his very latest column...
Weeeeellll isn't that just *special*!
> Oh and, uh, heh heh. I restored the alt.feminism newsgroup to the header
> that Porky Worstall/Hemingway deleted so that the branch of this thread
> isn't censored from that group (for those of you who find this sort of
> censorship wrong, looks like Mark Borgerson, the Big Daddy Sir Galahad
> feminist of the group, is doing the same thing on this thread).
I eschew censorship and anything that limits knowledge and thought.
> As related:
> http://www.Fredoneverything.net/MilMed.html
Let me just clue you in Chris, I don't live my life by political rule, I
rule my life and every single thing I do and if I am certain that
fighting needs to be done in the name of self-defence, I am going to
fight and no one will be able to stop me, mkay?
White~Dragon ®
>
>
> "White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> <<SNIP>>
> > These were medium risk patrols in areas US troups has an advantage.
> > Of course,they did get some good footage of battles and fire fights.
> > And few of them were civilian, most were army reporters.
> >
> > But this is hardly being droped into an hot LZ where the US did not have
an
> > advantage and serious fighting,death and latter extraction of wounded
were
> > needed.
> > (which is what we are talking about)
> > Women being able to carry a man by her self to safety.
> >
> > >
> > > From: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/vietnam/journalists.html
> > >
> > > I suspect that some of those journalists were inserted into
> > > hot LZs in Vietnam.
> > >
> >
> > Not on any i was droped into.
> > And i remember them wanting to go, but being left at base camp.
> > You ASSume wrong.
>
> I will defer to your first-hand experience. But I still wonder if
> your experience covered all the possible instances.
Maybe not all the possible instances.
Indeed maybe there were some reporters who actually saw real combat 1st
hand.
On the other hand, i have not seen one TV battle clip (although very real
for where the location was)
that came close to an all out bloody mess a close combat away from support
battle can be.
Night time compounds the situation.
> However, it
> is very possible that much of the footage I saw at the time was
> taken by Army photographers with voice-over by the civilian
> reporters.
> >
> > > So far, we've lost less than a half-dozen reporters in Afghanistan
> > > (plus one in Pakistan). Three reporters were killed in one
> > > Taliban ambush a few months ago. There were reporters on scene
> > > at the prison riot that lead to the death of a CIA agent---but
> > > they were hustled away by US special forces.
> > >
> > > The military does have some good reasons for keeping reporters a
> > > bit further back now. In the past they could better control
> > > communications. Now, with satellite phones, the military has
> > > little control over correspondent comms.
> >
> > The military has plenty of control.
> > One word and they can all be packed up and sent home.
>
>
> This is in direct contradiction to what I've heard. I heard
> one reporter (in a discussion concerning the ambushed reporters)
> say that Afghanistan was essentially an open country over which
> the US military had minimal control. Only when the reporters
> actually try to get into US bases or mingle with US troops
> in the countryside, does the US have any control over the
> movement of the reporters. I think this is especially true
> of reporters from other nations.
Afghanistan is still a limited military operation.
Almost a police action rooting out a core crew of "evil dooers"
in a nation that *somewhat* wants and needs our help.
Afghanistan is not a fair comparison (yet) of what an all out battle which
sometimes comes to a hand-to-hand
fight for last breath and death.
Its more like a limited engagement with air superority.
>
> Mark Borgerson
White~Dragon ®
>
>
> "White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> >
> > "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3C8E4DC3...@udel.edu...
>
> > In combat there will be many times when you may have to carry someone
and
> > yourself
> > to a safety zone.
>
> then it should be a physical requirement to be able to carry a man a few
> miles in order to qualify as a combatant.
The 'Person" should be carried.
Miles? Probably not.
100 yards? Very possible.
can some women do it? Yes
Would i want to fight next to one i thought could not?
No.
>
> > Do you really think they allow combat corrspondants in to serious fire
fight
> > area?
>
> It was a fire-fight, that is for sure, it wasn't not serious.
>
> > Or into an 'all out battle zone'? Where commanders expect heavy US
> > casualties?
> > What you see on TV (the history channel) is somewhat real.
>
> Well this footage was real.
>
For where the locations the shots were taken, it was very real.
> > But i do like the history channel :)
>
> It's cool. I would watch it if I had any channels other than 4 :)
You get that many?
~wd
White~Dragon ®
Yes.
Everyone entering the military has to go thru a "basic combat training"
White~Dragon ®
The physical standard is "basic combat training"
Everyone entering the armed forces must pass it.
The test have been curved to allow more females to pass.
This will only get them killed.
There willingness to *want* to go to battle is (sincerly) nobel.
I just hope it does not lead to needless deaths.
~wd
`
White~Dragon ®
And i DO feel Lucky.
More so then you can realize by these mere types words.
And i realize your intentions are sincere and very real.
Combat is no place for *some** women.
And the millions it would cost to find the *few* that *can* pass the mustard
just is not worth it Jen.
Team work is what wins wars.
Part of being a team player is finding your nitch and doing it well.
If YOUR nitch is NOT field combat.. So what.
Support rolls are equally (if not MORE) important as pulling the trigger in
the field.
Support rolls will NOT make women LESS then MEN.
~wd
Andre Lieven
You put *both* in positions where they aren't a hinderance. Such as
non-combat support arms.
Men from the bottom quintile aren't going to the 10th Mountain Division,
the SEALS, or the USS LaJolla ( A 699I attack sub ). Men from the bottom
quintile aren't going to serve as deck crew on a supercarrier. And,
they're not going to be flying jets.
>> "(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal
>> to the male mean score of 260.
>>
>> "(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score
>> of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
>
> So make the 7% eligble for combat jobs. Put the rest in a non-combat job--
> with the 22 percent of men, I suppose.
With 78% of men being already able to meet that criterion, without
needing gender specific logistics, and being able to do all of the
needed jobs, why open up to so few women ?
Whats the case *for* ?
>> "(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70
>> percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the
>> end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the
>> Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness
>> badge.."
>
> Are the Recondo badge and Physical Fitness badges required for combat
> duty??
Western officers have to lead by being able to do as well as their
troops. Its clear that when you water down those requirements to
the point that *70%* of those let in under the lower requirements
*couldn't* make it under the equal requirements, it becomes clear
that that lowering wasn't " equality ", it was blatant gerrymandering.
>> The following, quoted by Brian Mitchell in his book Women in the Military:
>> Flirting With Disaster (Regnery, 1998) and widely known to students of the
>> military, are results of a test the Navy did to see how well women could
>> perform in damage control -- i.e., tasks necessary to save a ship that had
>> been hit.
>
> That all sounds like good arguments for accepting the women who meet
> who meet whatever standards required for men to be accepted
> for combat duty. They shouldn't then be any more of a problem
> than the lowest-performing men.
The " lowest performing men " don't get those assignments, either.
So, why should women get them, when men don't ? That would be...
*secist*.
> <<SNIP>>
>
> The Navy study looked interesting---but the formatting was trashed
> for me. Is there an online copy of that study??
>
> I suppose that the services could learn to live with uniform
> physical standards as they have learned to live with uniform
> mental standards (some services used to require women to have
> higher ASVAB scores than men for the same programs). However
> I suspect that recruiting would still be a problem. See
> http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/working_papers/wp_00-1.pdf
> for a description of some of the problems. One of them is
> that a lot of very fit athletes get rejected because of upper
> body mobility standards. Another reason for rejection is
> having laser eye surgery to correct vision problems.
Yes, you can wash out, after passing the first hurdles. The
point is, that men don't get to try for the laters tests,
after flunking the earlier ones. And, that men who do at the
lower end, don't get the plumb assignments.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
BrettG
Usually, but more by accident than design (see the current
ng list above)
> Is it right to assume that people who post to multiple groups also
> read all the groups?
No. They post to different groups for one of two reasons.
1) To troll and start flame wars between non sympathetic
groups .
2) To discuss an issue where the subject is pertinent to the
charter of the different groups.
> If so, they have more free time than me!
> We knights are too busy rescuing the fair damsels! ;-)
> (Real feminists don't allow themselves to be rescued---they
> suit up in their own armor! ;-) )
Rubbish. The difference between a traditionalist woman
(damsel) and a feminist is the damsel plays on your inherent
male chivalry in order to be rescued, and will usually be
grateful to you afterwards, whereas a feminist legislates
to force you to rescue her while hating you before, during
and afterwards.
HTH
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C8F51AE...@udel.edu...
> > So, this is a physical standard that is tested for in the military? If
> > it is required, then I suppose it must be.
> The physical standard is "basic combat training"
> Everyone entering the armed forces must pass it.
hmmm I entered in the eighty's and had no such training.
> The test have been curved to allow more females to pass.
Cite?
> This will only get them killed.
If the standard is not equal to the job perhaps.
> There willingness to *want* to go to battle is (sincerly) nobel.
> I just hope it does not lead to needless deaths.
Life on earth leads to needless deaths. In war death happens. Do you
know how many babies the US is directly responsible for killing via
artillery in the past 100 years? It's time for women to die with the gun
in hand instead of watching helplessly as their entire family is
slaughtered and they are raped before their murder or watch them
evaporate in a nuclear blast. If men gave a damn about "needless death"
in war they wouldn't wage any war, and if they gave a damn about
protecting women from combat (death) they wouldn't wage war. EOS. Your
needless death is worth as much as mine (to me) WD. Men are as important
as women are to me WD, but to men I am more important. This is a sexist
phenomenon that needs to end.
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C8F5207...@udel.edu...
> > > The "standard" is the basic combat training!
> > > The same training women are failing.
> > What women are being combat trained?
> Yes.
> Everyone entering the military has to go thru a "basic combat training"
Cite?
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
>
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C8F5193...@udel.edu...
> > then it should be a physical requirement to be able to carry a man a few
> > miles in order to qualify as a combatant.
> The 'Person" should be carried.
> Miles? Probably not.
> 100 yards? Very possible.
so is this a requirement to be a combatant?
> > It was a fire-fight, that is for sure, it wasn't not serious.
> > > Or into an 'all out battle zone'? Where commanders expect heavy US
> > > casualties?
> > > What you see on TV (the history channel) is somewhat real.
> > Well this footage was real.
> For where the locations the shots were taken, it was very real.
Yes, and it showed two men carrying one man to cover.
> > > But i do like the history channel :)
> > It's cool. I would watch it if I had any channels other than 4 :)
> You get that many?
Yea channel four. that's it and it only in tune to a vcr and game
system. So I have history and nature videos :)
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
>
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C8F51FD...@udel.edu...
> Combat is no place for *some** women.
Or men BFD.
> And the millions it would cost to find the *few* that *can* pass the mustard
> just is not worth it Jen.
I find that to be an incorrect statement.
> Team work is what wins wars.
> Part of being a team player is finding your nitch and doing it well.
> If YOUR nitch is NOT field combat.. So what.
Indeed but if combatants are needed (guess who would win a ground war in
US v China) and women are meeting the basic standard of combatant then
they are under a national DUTY to enter combat.
> Support rolls are equally (if not MORE) important as pulling the trigger in
> the field.
Depends on the situation actually. I agree that specialized training and
aptitude play a critical role in military matters.
> Support rolls will NOT make women LESS then MEN.
If women are not willing to FIGHT and DIE when necessary for the
freedoms they enjoy then they do NOT deserve them. I will never instill
this notion in myself or any person in my proximity.
White~Dragon ®
>
>
> "White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> >
> > "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3C8F5193...@udel.edu...
>
> > > then it should be a physical requirement to be able to carry a man a
few
> > > miles in order to qualify as a combatant.
>
> > The 'Person" should be carried.
> > Miles? Probably not.
> > 100 yards? Very possible.
>
> so is this a requirement to be a combatant?
Is it something you are tested on?
No.
Is it demenstrated you can do it by passing basic combat training?
Yes.
>
> > > It was a fire-fight, that is for sure, it wasn't not serious.
>
> > > > Or into an 'all out battle zone'? Where commanders expect heavy US
> > > > casualties?
> > > > What you see on TV (the history channel) is somewhat real.
>
> > > Well this footage was real.
>
> > For where the locations the shots were taken, it was very real.
>
> Yes, and it showed two men carrying one man to cover.
Of course when ever possible 2 or more will carry dead or wounded.
But at times its not unusual for one to do it.
That would depend on if you went in to combat with a 20 person squad
and you are pulling back with only 5
>
> > > > But i do like the history channel :)
>
> > > It's cool. I would watch it if I had any channels other than 4 :)
>
> > You get that many?
>
> Yea channel four. that's it and it only in tune to a vcr and game
> system. So I have history and nature videos :)
:-)
my favs too
~wd
Rich Soyack
news:u917mop...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C908E93...@udel.edu...
> >
> >
> > "White~Dragon ®" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:3C8F5193...@udel.edu...
> >
> > > > then it should be a physical requirement to be able to carry a man a
> few
> > > > miles in order to qualify as a combatant.
> >
> > > The 'Person" should be carried.
> > > Miles? Probably not.
> > > 100 yards? Very possible.
> >
> > so is this a requirement to be a combatant?
>
> Is it something you are tested on?
> No.
You are tested on carrying wounded in the U. S. Marine Corps in basic
training.
>
> Is it demenstrated you can do it by passing basic combat training?
> Yes.
>
>
>
> >
> > > > It was a fire-fight, that is for sure, it wasn't not serious.
> >
> > > > > Or into an 'all out battle zone'? Where commanders expect heavy US
> > > > > casualties?
> > > > > What you see on TV (the history channel) is somewhat real.
> >
> > > > Well this footage was real.
> >
> > > For where the locations the shots were taken, it was very real.
> >
> > Yes, and it showed two men carrying one man to cover.
>
> Of course when ever possible 2 or more will carry dead or wounded.
> But at times its not unusual for one to do it.
> That would depend on if you went in to combat with a 20 person squad
> and you are pulling back with only 5
Or on a two man patrol.
Rich Soyack
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
>
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C908E93...@udel.edu...
>
> Is it something you are tested on?
> No.
> Is it demenstrated you can do it by passing basic combat training?
> Yes.
> > Yes, and it showed two men carrying one man to cover.
> Of course when ever possible 2 or more will carry dead or wounded.
> But at times its not unusual for one to do it.
> That would depend on if you went in to combat with a 20 person squad
> and you are pulling back with only 5
Face it there's no standard that you must be able to carry a man out of
combat zone.
> > Yea channel four. that's it and it only in tune to a vcr and game
> > system. So I have history and nature videos :)
> :-)
> my favs too
Yea, that and comedy stuff :)
White~Dragon ®
Well, i thought it was general common knowledge that all new people entering
the armed forces has to go through an 9 week basic combat training.(BCS) and
then must pass proficiency testing.
But let me see if i can find you one.
OK here ya go:
White~Dragon ®
>
>
> "White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
>
> > "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3C8F51AE...@udel.edu...
>
> > > So, this is a physical standard that is tested for in the military? If
> > > it is required, then I suppose it must be.
>
> > The physical standard is "basic combat training"
> > Everyone entering the armed forces must pass it.
>
> hmmm I entered in the eighty's and had no such training.
>
> > The test have been curved to allow more females to pass.
>
> Cite?
>
> > This will only get them killed.
>
> If the standard is not equal to the job perhaps.
>
> > There willingness to *want* to go to battle is (sincerly) nobel.
> > I just hope it does not lead to needless deaths.
>
> Life on earth leads to needless deaths. In war death happens. Do you
> know how many babies the US is directly responsible for killing via
> artillery in the past 100 years?
An awful lot.
Too many.
> It's time for women to die with the gun
> in hand instead of watching helplessly as their entire family is
> slaughtered and they are raped before their murder or watch them
> evaporate in a nuclear blast.
I understand.
> If men gave a damn about "needless death"
> in war they wouldn't wage any war,
This is exactly right.
>and if they gave a damn about
> protecting women from combat (death) they wouldn't wage war. EOS. Your
> needless death is worth as much as mine (to me) WD. Men are as important
> as women are to me WD, but to men I am more important. This is a sexist
> phenomenon that needs to end.
You feel very strongly about this i see.
And you have brought up some things i did not consider.
So,I guess you may be right about this Jen.
But i would like to see only people who can pass the minimum standard go to
combat. This will give everyone a better chance to survive.
The ones who cannot pass should feel just as good to do support rolls
as they are equally as important. In reality more important.
Perhaps i am outdated in my thinking and out moded in my chivalry.
You can call me a dinosaur. :->
But ONLY you mkay
~wd
White~Dragon ®
>
>
> "White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> >
> > "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3C8F51FD...@udel.edu...
>
> > Combat is no place for *some** women.
>
> Or men BFD.
ok
i only say ok, because i dont think either should be in war.
Its also necessary at times, so lets move on.
>
> > And the millions it would cost to find the *few* that *can* pass the
mustard
> > just is not worth it Jen.
>
> I find that to be an incorrect statement.
Why so?
We have seen right here on this NG dozens of supported docs that say women
are injured during training at higher rates then men are and they latter
substain further injury at their assigned duty posts.
>
> > Team work is what wins wars.
> > Part of being a team player is finding your nitch and doing it well.
> > If YOUR nitch is NOT field combat.. So what.
>
> Indeed but if combatants are needed (guess who would win a ground war in
> US v China) and women are meeting the basic standard of combatant then
> they are under a national DUTY to enter combat.
The ones meeting it yes.
But what about the ones who are not?
>
> > Support rolls are equally (if not MORE) important as pulling the trigger
in
> > the field.
>
> Depends on the situation actually. I agree that specialized training and
> aptitude play a critical role in military matters.
>
> > Support rolls will NOT make women LESS then MEN.
>
> If women are not willing to FIGHT and DIE when necessary for the
> freedoms they enjoy then they do NOT deserve them. I will never instill
> this notion in myself or any person in my proximity.
Good point.
One i had not considered women felt so strongly about.
Jerry Fowler
<serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
WD, Your just gonna get "immersion foot" pissn' into the wind.
Andre Lieven
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C908F6E...@udel.edu...
>>
>>
>> > "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:3C8F51AE...@udel.edu...
>>
>> > > So, this is a physical standard that is tested for in the military?
>>
>> > The physical standard is "basic combat training"
>> > Everyone entering the armed forces must pass it.
>>
>> hmmm I entered in the eighty's and had no such training.
>>
>> > The test have been curved to allow more females to pass.
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>> > This will only get them killed.
>>
>> If the standard is not equal to the job perhaps.
>>
>> > There willingness to *want* to go to battle is (sincerly) nobel.
>> > I just hope it does not lead to needless deaths.
>>
>> Life on earth leads to needless deaths. In war death happens. Do you
>> know how many babies the US is directly responsible for killing via
>> artillery in the past 100 years?
>
> An awful lot.
> Too many.
" It is good that war is so awful, else we might begin to enjoy it. "
Sherman, IIRC.
>> It's time for women to die with the gun
>> in hand instead of watching helplessly as their entire family is
>> slaughtered and they are raped before their murder or watch them
>> evaporate in a nuclear blast.
>
> I understand.
>
>> If men gave a damn about "needless death"
>> in war they wouldn't wage any war,
>
> This is exactly right.
This is exactly *wrong*. We can note that woman leaders such
as Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, and Golda Meir all started
wars.
>> and if they gave a damn about
>> protecting women from combat (death) they wouldn't wage war. EOS. Your
>> needless death is worth as much as mine (to me) WD. Men are as important
>> as women are to me WD, but to men I am more important. This is a sexist
>> phenomenon that needs to end.
>
> You feel very strongly about this i see.
> And you have brought up some things i did not consider.
> So,I guess you may be right about this Jen.
No, not really.
> But i would like to see only people who can pass the minimum standard go
> to combat. This will give everyone a better chance to survive.
Indeed. Failing to do a job at the office doesn't necessarily get
other people *killed*...
Stephanie Guttman's book " The Kinder, Gentler Military " covers
this topic at length and in depth, and Jen's ideas are not
supported by that important book.
> The ones who cannot pass should feel just as good to do support rolls
> as they are equally as important. In reality more important.
>
> Perhaps i am outdated in my thinking and out moded in my chivalry.
> You can call me a dinosaur. :->
> But ONLY you mkay
Andre
White~Dragon ®
"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lD1k8.11876$dn2....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "White~Dragon ®" <serv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u917mop...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3C908E93...@udel.edu...
> > >
> > >
> > > "White~Dragon ®" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> > > > news:3C8F5193...@udel.edu...
> > >
> > > > > then it should be a physical requirement to be able to carry a man
a
> > few
> > > > > miles in order to qualify as a combatant.
> > >
> > > > The 'Person" should be carried.
> > > > Miles? Probably not.
> > > > 100 yards? Very possible.
> > >
> > > so is this a requirement to be a combatant?
> >
> > Is it something you are tested on?
> > No.
>
> You are tested on carrying wounded in the U. S. Marine Corps in basic
> training.
I was The 2d Battalion (Ranger), 75th Infantry (reconn)
stationed Quang Ni Province in 69 and in basic
we did not have to do this.
In AIT however, we did (with full ruck and ammo)
But we were talking about women passing the minimum standard, so unless
things have changed in the Army, this would not be a tested item.
>
> >
> > Is it demenstrated you can do it by passing basic combat training?
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > It was a fire-fight, that is for sure, it wasn't not serious.
> > >
> > > > > > Or into an 'all out battle zone'? Where commanders expect heavy
US
> > > > > > casualties?
> > > > > > What you see on TV (the history channel) is somewhat real.
> > >
> > > > > Well this footage was real.
> > >
> > > > For where the locations the shots were taken, it was very real.
> > >
> > > Yes, and it showed two men carrying one man to cover.
> >
> > Of course when ever possible 2 or more will carry dead or wounded.
> > But at times its not unusual for one to do it.
> > That would depend on if you went in to combat with a 20 person squad
> > and you are pulling back with only 5
>
> Or on a two man patrol.
The only 2 man squads i personally saw were sniper.
5th Marine Scout Sniper Platoon usually in
6 or 8 man squads with 2 man teams.
A spotter and a shooter.
In which case, they usually were too deep to be extracted via chopper.
But mostly they protected BaseCamp
~wd
>
> Rich Soyack
>
>
White~Dragon ®
>
>
> "White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> >
> > "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3C908E93...@udel.edu...
> >
> > Is it something you are tested on?
> > No.
>
> > Is it demenstrated you can do it by passing basic combat training?
> > Yes.
>
> > > Yes, and it showed two men carrying one man to cover.
>
> > Of course when ever possible 2 or more will carry dead or wounded.
> > But at times its not unusual for one to do it.
> > That would depend on if you went in to combat with a 20 person squad
> > and you are pulling back with only 5
>
> Face it there's no standard that you must be able to carry a man out of
> combat zone.
The standard is basic trainning.An over all testing of your strength and
character.
There is no 'actual test' for carrying someone that i know of for the Army.
White~Dragon ®
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:a6qi0d$8fd$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
I think she was refering to "MAN-kind"
Jen Larson
Rich Soyack wrote:
> You are tested on carrying wounded in the U. S. Marine Corps in basic
> training.
describe the test.
Mark Borgerson
No, I'm asking whether these badges set requirements higher than the military
requires for assignment to combat units. It just seemed that those two
badges
were not pertinent to the question of the minimum standards for combat
duty. We are all aware that the physical performance curves for men and
women are not identical, and that the curve for men shows higher average
performance. For me, it is the question of what to do with the people in
the area where the curves overlap that is still unsettled. If the
minumum standards for combat duty fall in the overlap zone, what do
you do with women above the cutoff and men below the cutoff?
Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
I would ask whether that is because the film was not shot, or because the
networks decided not to air it.
> Night time compounds the situation.
Not as much now with the easy availability of NVG.
Well it's either combat or it isn't. It's either a war or
it isn't. If not, it's as close as we get right now. On a
small scale, I suppose there are the type of hand-to-hand
battles you describe---but they may be mostly fought by
the NA troops. Certainly nothing here to match the TET
offensive or a number of other large actions in Vietnam.
Of course, the same really applies to Kosovo, Bosnia, and
the Gulf War.
OTOH, I'm not sure if the scale and nature of the conflict
in Afghanistan is an argument for or against wider media
access.
Mark Borgerson
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
>
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C908EA1...@udel.edu...
> > > Yes.
> > > Everyone entering the military has to go thru a "basic combat training"
> > Cite?
> Well, i thought it was general common knowledge that all new people entering
> the armed forces has to go through an 9 week basic combat training.(BCS) and
> then must pass proficiency testing.
> But let me see if i can find you one.
> OK here ya go:
Says nothing about carrying a person for any distance. Also advanced
infantry training does not mention carrying a person, but it does
exclude women based on nothing but sex and I see no justification for
it.
> http://www.goarmy.com/tour/basic.htm
Mark Borgerson
Because the military is having trouble recruiting enough men.
>
> Whats the case *for* ?
93% staffing versus 85% staffing??? (Pick your own numbers--
then decide whether the increased staffing is worth the cost of
selecting the qualified women. Remember that there are social
benefits to appearing to be more inclusive--as well as staffing
benefits. Perhaps the money would be better spent on recruiting--
I don't know enough to be sure of that. But I would think that
most company commanders would prefer more qualified people to
fewer qualified people---when all are qualified to the same
degree.
>
> >> "(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70
> >> percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the
> >> end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the
> >> Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness
> >> badge.."
> >
> > Are the Recondo badge and Physical Fitness badges required for combat
> > duty??
>
> Western officers have to lead by being able to do as well as their
> troops. Its clear that when you water down those requirements to
> the point that *70%* of those let in under the lower requirements
> *couldn't* make it under the equal requirements, it becomes clear
> that that lowering wasn't " equality ", it was blatant gerrymandering.
Hmmm, that may be true in some specific combat jobs. However, as a
naval officer, I was never expected to be able to do the same jobs
as my enlisted petty officers. In fact my physical training at
NAVOCS greatly exceeded the training I experienced at enlisted
boot camp. I suspect that the same may be true for Marine
and Army officers. However, the fitness STANDARDS may be the
same for both enlisted and officers. IIRC, the mental and
educational standards are certainly higher for officers.
>
> >> The following, quoted by Brian Mitchell in his book Women in the Military:
> >> Flirting With Disaster (Regnery, 1998) and widely known to students of the
> >> military, are results of a test the Navy did to see how well women could
> >> perform in damage control -- i.e., tasks necessary to save a ship that had
> >> been hit.
> >
> > That all sounds like good arguments for accepting the women who meet
> > who meet whatever standards required for men to be accepted
> > for combat duty. They shouldn't then be any more of a problem
> > than the lowest-performing men.
>
> The " lowest performing men " don't get those assignments, either.
> So, why should women get them, when men don't ? That would be...
> *secist*.
My point exactly. You give the jobs to the men AND WOMEN who
pass the single, uniform fitness standard.
>
> > <<SNIP>>
> >
> > The Navy study looked interesting---but the formatting was trashed
> > for me. Is there an online copy of that study??
> >
> > I suppose that the services could learn to live with uniform
> > physical standards as they have learned to live with uniform
> > mental standards (some services used to require women to have
> > higher ASVAB scores than men for the same programs). However
> > I suspect that recruiting would still be a problem. See
> > http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/working_papers/wp_00-1.pdf
> > for a description of some of the problems. One of them is
> > that a lot of very fit athletes get rejected because of upper
> > body mobility standards. Another reason for rejection is
> > having laser eye surgery to correct vision problems.
>
> Yes, you can wash out, after passing the first hurdles. The
> point is, that men don't get to try for the laters tests,
> after flunking the earlier ones. And, that men who do at the
> lower end, don't get the plumb assignments.
This wasn't about washing out---but about not even being able
to enlist in the first place.
I advocate a single standard for acceptance into the military, and
another uniform standard for ground combat duty. If you meet
the first standard, you can enlist and are eligible for non-
combat duty. If you pass the second test, you are eligible
for assignment to ground combat units. Any badges or awards
in excess of the minimums are positive entries in you service
record---and may be weighted in the selection of duty
assignment. Specialist units may set higher standards---as
long as they are uniform and apply equally to both sexes,
I have no problem. Note that I did not specify only
physical standards---intelligence and aptitude standards
may be part of the requirements (as they are now for
many assignments).
Note that I am NOT arguing for different and lower standards
for women. The military sets its standards. If they cannot
get enough recruits that meet the standards, they are free
to make their own quality vs. quantity decisions.
It also depends on what you consider the 'plum' assignments.
If you don't pass the Ranger physical screening and get sent
Electronics and Computer school, have you missed much?
In my case I missed out on the requirements for flight school,
(20-100 uncorrected vision), but ended up in language
school, then OCS. I'd be surprised if three years of shore
duty in Hawaii wouldn't look like a plum to a lot of
F-4 pilots! (the year in Morocco was NOT a plum by
anyone's standards!)
Mark Borgerson
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
>
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C908F6E...@udel.edu...
> You feel very strongly about this i see.
Yes. I honestly and truly value my freedom and will fight and die for my
kids to get a chance at having it, and I will let them know through
education just exactly how fragile it is, prepare them, and instill in
them a sense of urgency wrt protecting it and my future descendants.
> And you have brought up some things i did not consider.
> So,I guess you may be right about this Jen.
(as usual) ;)
> But i would like to see only people who can pass the minimum standard go to
> combat. This will give everyone a better chance to survive.
I totally agree. I understand the broad spectrum of the logistics of the
military and agree completely that aptitude and physical standards are
necessary and applicable and do not wish to alter them so more women may
enter. I would strongly argue against it.
> The ones who cannot pass should feel just as good to do support rolls
> as they are equally as important. In reality more important.
The military all need everyone to do the best job they can in whatever
it is they are doing. This I know and understand to be the mission.
> Perhaps i am outdated in my thinking and out moded in my chivalry.
> You can call me a dinosaur. :->
I won't.
> But ONLY you mkay
I won't so nobody better.
Mark Borgerson
Well I guess I'm not qualified to be a feminist then, since
I don't hate anybody. As for being a damse--I think that
term is more gender-specific than 'feminist'. However, I
have been known to express gratitude when rescued---but
I don't think I was playing on anyone's chivalry at the time--
it was more a case of "throw me that line so I don't crunch
the woodwork on that expensive yacht!" The gratitude involved
inviting the guy over for a beer after we tied up.
Mark Borgerson
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
>
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C908F8A...@udel.edu...
> > > And the millions it would cost to find the *few* that *can* pass the
> mustard
> > > just is not worth it Jen.
> > I find that to be an incorrect statement.
> Why so?
> We have seen right here on this NG dozens of supported docs that say women
> are injured during training at higher rates then men are and they latter
> substain further injury at their assigned duty posts.
Raise the expectation and enforce it. Have recruits train physically
before entering, etc, no pregnancy first tour you are here to perfom a
critical job etc, get them to sign it.
> > > Team work is what wins wars.
> > > Part of being a team player is finding your nitch and doing it well.
> > > If YOUR nitch is NOT field combat.. So what.
> > Indeed but if combatants are needed (guess who would win a ground war in
> > US v China) and women are meeting the basic standard of combatant then
> > they are under a national DUTY to enter combat.
> The ones meeting it yes.
> But what about the ones who are not?
If needed, deploy elsewhere.
> > > Support rolls are equally (if not MORE) important as pulling the trigger
> in
> > > the field.
> > Depends on the situation actually. I agree that specialized training and
> > aptitude play a critical role in military matters.
> > > Support rolls will NOT make women LESS then MEN.
> > If women are not willing to FIGHT and DIE when necessary for the
> > freedoms they enjoy then they do NOT deserve them. I will never instill
> > this notion in myself or any person in my proximity.
> Good point.
> One i had not considered women felt so strongly about.
They ought to.
Rich Soyack
I specifically said it was in the Marine Corps. Where did I refer to the
Army?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Is it demenstrated you can do it by passing basic combat training?
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > It was a fire-fight, that is for sure, it wasn't not serious.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Or into an 'all out battle zone'? Where commanders expect
heavy
> US
> > > > > > > casualties?
> > > > > > > What you see on TV (the history channel) is somewhat real.
> > > >
> > > > > > Well this footage was real.
> > > >
> > > > > For where the locations the shots were taken, it was very real.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and it showed two men carrying one man to cover.
> > >
> > > Of course when ever possible 2 or more will carry dead or wounded.
> > > But at times its not unusual for one to do it.
> > > That would depend on if you went in to combat with a 20 person squad
> > > and you are pulling back with only 5
> >
> > Or on a two man patrol.
>
> The only 2 man squads i personally saw were sniper.
> 5th Marine Scout Sniper Platoon usually in
> 6 or 8 man squads with 2 man teams.
> A spotter and a shooter.
> In which case, they usually were too deep to be extracted via chopper.
> But mostly they protected BaseCamp
Rich Soyack
Rich Soyack
Rich Soyack
If you are really interested, I would suggest that you contact West Point
and ask
them about these physical fitness badges. My opinion, the key to combat
success
is physical fitness. If you disagree, shrug.
Rich Soyack
Malcolm James
When Parents Kill
Why fathers do it. Why mothers do it.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 3:00 PM PT
Andrea Yates
Women do not, by and large, make terrific criminals. In the United States,
women commit only two crimes as frequently as men. The first is shoplifting.
The second is the murder of their own children. Andrea Yates, the Houston
mother whose trial for the murders of three of her children ends today, and
Marilyn Lemak, the Chicago nurse recently convicted of killing her three
children, are not at all statistical anomalies. Somehow, women-who commit
less than 13 percent of all violent crimes in the United States-commit about
50 percent of all parental murders. Why do so many women direct their most
violent impulses toward their own children? While it may once have been true
that women were the sole-and often frustrated-caregivers of small children,
mothers now work, yet they don't kill their colleagues; they kill their
babies. Why? Feminists and legal researchers tend to claim that such women
must be extremely ill. Judges and juries mostly agree, with the result being
that women who kill their children in this country are disproportionately
hospitalized or treated, while men who do so are disproportionately jailed,
even executed.
According to a recent book entitled Mothers Who Kill Their Children, by
Michelle Oberman-a professor of law at DePaul University-juries are loath to
hand down murder convictions for mothers accused of killing their own
children. Such juries are even more reluctant to impose draconian penalties.
A 1969 study by Dr. Phillip Resnick, the "father" of maternal filicide (the
murder of a child by a parent), found that while mothers convicted of
murdering their children were hospitalized 68 percent of the time and
imprisoned 27 percent of the time, fathers convicted of killing their
children were sentenced to prison or executed 72 percent of the time and
hospitalized only 14 percent of the time. More recent British studies by
P.T. D'Orban support these findings. And although the United States does not
have any formal equivalent to England's Infanticide Act-which codifies a
sort of postpartum depression defense-American juries and judges have taken
it upon themselves to excuse and treat most of these mothers for mental
illness while condemning the fathers as violent criminals.
The scholars, the media, and most of the studies do their best to persuade
us that these murderous moms really are ill. Perhaps it comforts us to
believe that anyone who violates the sacred mother-child bond is simply
crazy; it would be unimaginable if these mothers were making rational
criminal choices. And since women are not violent in other contexts, most
scholars, including Oberman, argue that the majority of maternal murderers
suffer from depression, postpartum psychoses, and other mental afflictions.
But no one has put forth an analogous medical theory to explain whether
fathers who kill their offspring are also depressed, isolated, or psychotic.
Attack of the Drones
No, the IRS Is Not Paying Slavery Reparations
Index Funds: Shielding You From Shame Since the '70s
The problem with the "illness" theory is that it only goes partway toward
explaining why women kill their babies. Illness may explain how some women
eventually snap and behave violently. But it doesn't begin to explain why
they direct this madness so disproportionately toward their own offspring.
Even taking into account that some small fraction of the mental illnesses
associated with maternal filicide-most notably postpartum depression-are
triggered by the births themselves, the illness theory doesn't explain why
mothers suffering from other mental illnesses, or who aren't ill at all, act
out with their own children rather than strangers. The illness theory
doesn't explain why we don't consider fathers who kill their children to be
sick. Pulling murderous mothers out of the field of ordinary criminology and
viewing them as fundamentally different raises more questions than it
answers. Perhaps murderous mothers are no crazier than fathers. Perhaps
murderous fathers are even crazier than mothers. Either way, the failure to
view these crimes as morally or legally equivalent reflects a more central
legal truth: We still view children as the mother's property. Since
destroying one's own property is considered crazy while destroying someone
else's property is criminal, women who murder their own children are sent to
hospitals, whereas their husbands are criminals, who go to jail or the
electric chair.
Why does the legal system treat a mother who kills someone else's child as
though she were a sociopathic killer while showing mercy toward a mom who
drowns her own? For the same reason the law treats individuals who burn down
other people's houses as criminals and institutionalizes those who burn down
their own. Men are disproportionately jailed for filicide not because they
are more evil than women but because we believe they have harmed a woman's
property-as opposed to their own.
The Numbers
Children under the age of 5 in the United States are more likely to be
killed by their parents than anyone else. Contrary to popular mythology,
they are rarely killed by a sex-crazed stranger. FBI crime statistics show
that in 1999 parents were responsible for 57 percent of these murders, with
family friends and acquaintances accounting for another 30 percent and other
family members accounting for 8 percent. Crime statistics further reveal
that of the children under 5 killed from 1976 to 1999, 30 percent were
murdered by their mothers while 31 percent were killed by their fathers. And
while the strangers, acquaintances, and other family members who kill
children skew heavily toward males (as does the entire class of murderers),
children are as likely to be murdered by their fathers as by their mothers.
The Newspapers
Doug Saunders observed recently in the Toronto newspaper the Globe and Mail
that the media is complicit in treating maternal killers as newsworthy and
paternal killers as ordinary criminals. Newspapers currently following every
motion in the Andrea Yates trial completely ignored last month's Los Angeles
filicide, in which Adair Garcia killed five of his six children by
asphyxiating them with a barbeque he'd lit in the living room. He did it to
punish his estranged wife, who had moved out a week earlier. Coverage of
Ukranian immigrant Nikolay Soltys, who killed his pregnant wife and
3-year-old son last August, was less focused on his mental state than his
dramatic flight and capture. Why is Yates a front-page story while Garcia is
disregarded? To paraphrase Michelle Oberman: Murdering mothers are just
different.
The Motives
The same studies that have been used to prove that murderous mothers are
"sick" can as readily be used to support the theory that both mothers and
fathers consider children to be a woman's property. Social science research
and FBI crime statistics show that men and women differ in the reasons they
kill their children, in the methods they employ, and in the ways they behave
following such murders. None of this data proves that fathers are crazier
than mothers. Much of it suggests that we all simply believe children
"belong" to their moms.
Researchers, building on the work of Phillip Resnick, have shown that women
tend to kill their own offspring for one of several reasons: because the
child is unwanted; out of mercy; as a result of some mental illness in the
mother; in retaliation against a spouse; as a result of abuse. Frequent
themes are that they themselves deserved to be punished, that killing the
children would be an altruistic or loving act, or that children need to be
"erased" in order to save or preserve a relationship. Contrast this with the
reasons men kill their children: Most frequently-like Garcia or Soltys-they
kill because they feel they have lost control over their finances, or their
families, or the relationship, or out of revenge for a perceived slight or
infidelity. The consistent idea is that women usually kill their children
either because they are angry at themselves or because they want to destroy
that which they created, whereas more often than not, men kill their
children to get back at a woman-to take away what she most cherishes.
According to a recent article by Elizabeth Fernandez in the San Francisco
Chronicle, studies further reveal that fathers are far more likely to commit
suicide after killing their children. Mothers attempt post-filicide suicide
but rarely succeed. Some scholars suggest this is because mothers tend to
view their children as mere extensions of themselves and that these
homicides are in fact suicidal.
The Murders
Perhaps more revealing than the differences in why they kill their offspring
are the differences between how fathers and mothers do so. For one thing,
parental murderers tend to be highly physical. According to a 1988 survey
done by the U.S. Justice Department, while 61 percent of all murder
defendants used a gun in 1988, only 20 percent of the parents who killed
their children used one. Children were drowned and shaken, beaten, poisoned,
stabbed, and suffocated. These methods betray a certain "craziness" in both
genders-they betray an intense passion and a lack of planning. But a study
by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children shows that fathers
are far more violent. And mothers frequently dispose of the corpses in what
researchers call a "womblike" fashion. Bodies are swaddled, submerged in
water, or wrapped in plastic. Moreover, the NCMEC study showed that while
the victims of maternal killings are almost always found either in or close
to the home, fathers will, on average, dispose of the bodies hundreds of
miles away. All these behaviors suggest that women associate these murders
with themselves, their homes, and their bodies
None of the arguments here assumes that there is no such thing as postpartum
depression or, in rarer cases, postpartum psychosis-a deep break from
reality that affects less than one in 500 new mothers. Andrea Yates is
actually a good example of someone who was overdetermined to experience some
kind of psychotic break that would end tragically. But Yates is only one of
hundreds of mothers who kill every year, and while complete psychotic breaks
explain why some of this homicidal rage and violence is turned upon one's
own children, it doesn't account for either the staggering numbers of
maternal homicides or for society's leniency toward women in these cases.
The property theory does provide these answers. Women still believe that
they have sole dominion over so little property that arson and armed robbery
and rape make no intuitive sense to them. But the destruction and control of
something deemed to be a woman's sole property sends a powerful message
about who's really in charge, and this message hasn't changed since the time
of Jason and Medea.
It would, of course, help if we could stop thinking of children as anyone's
property. It does nothing to advance the feminist cause to simply assume
that all mothers who kill their children must necessarily be crazy. It will
do a good deal to advance the cause of children's rights if we begin to
consider them as legal entities in and of themselves.
Jen Larson
Andre Lieven wrote:
>
> "White~Dragon ®" (serv...@hotmail.com) writes:
> >> If men gave a damn about "needless death"
> >> in war they wouldn't wage any war,
> > This is exactly right.
> This is exactly *wrong*. We can note that woman leaders such
> as Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, and Golda Meir all started
> wars.
Who goes off killing the masses?
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C90A765...@udel.edu...
> The standard is basic trainning.An over all testing of your strength and
> character.
> There is no 'actual test' for carrying someone that i know of for the Army.
Yet women do infact complete Army basic training.
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> > >> If men gave a damn about "needless death"
> > >> in war they wouldn't wage any war,
> > > This is exactly right.
> > This is exactly *wrong*. We can note that woman leaders such
> > as Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, and Golda Meir all started
> > wars.
> I think she was refering to "MAN-kind"
No, I was referring to men. This is a man's thing, women have been
excluded for thousands of years. Time for women to understand this
complacency on their part has escallated it.
Jen Larson
Rich Soyack wrote:
>
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C90F37E...@udel.edu...
> > > You are tested on carrying wounded in the U. S. Marine Corps in basic
> > > training.
> > describe the test.
> Why?
Why not?
My dad was a Marine, he will tell me if you don't.
White~Dragon ®
Thats something you will have to ask the networks
>
>
> > Night time compounds the situation.
> Not as much now with the easy availability of NVG.
right.
we did not have that when i was in the army
Things in life are seldom so black and white.
Example: Vietnam was not considered a war to our government, yet it had all
the qualties of war.
> If not, it's as close as we get right now. On a
> small scale, I suppose there are the type of hand-to-hand
> battles you describe---but they may be mostly fought by
> the NA troops. Certainly nothing here to match the TET
> offensive or a number of other large actions in Vietnam.
> Of course, the same really applies to Kosovo, Bosnia, and
> the Gulf War.
>
> OTOH, I'm not sure if the scale and nature of the conflict
> in Afghanistan is an argument for or against wider media
> access.
i think media should have access to war.
however, if said information could be used to harm americans, then they
should not be allowed
access.
>
> Mark Borgerson
White~Dragon ®
Because YOU jumped in this conservation and we were discussing women
and training you NOT marines.(which are a bunch of pussys anyway)
In the Army woman may server because of its more flexable "basic training"
White~Dragon ®
the ones who pass get into the Army.
Now, if they are infantry ground forces, they still need to pass AIT.
(Advanced Individual Training)
White~Dragon ®
Maybe the drop out rate/fail rate in the past were too high.
>
> > http://www.goarmy.com/tour/basic.htm
White~Dragon ®
>
>
> "White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> >
> > "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3C908F6E...@udel.edu...
>
> > You feel very strongly about this i see.
>
> Yes. I honestly and truly value my freedom and will fight and die for my
> kids to get a chance at having it, and I will let them know through
> education just exactly how fragile it is, prepare them, and instill in
> them a sense of urgency wrt protecting it and my future descendants.
>
> > And you have brought up some things i did not consider.
> > So,I guess you may be right about this Jen.
>
> (as usual) ;)
a simple smile would have done.
White~Dragon ®
>
>
> "White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> >
> > "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3C908F8A...@udel.edu...
>
> > > > And the millions it would cost to find the *few* that *can* pass the
> > mustard
> > > > just is not worth it Jen.
>
> > > I find that to be an incorrect statement.
>
> > Why so?
> > We have seen right here on this NG dozens of supported docs that say
women
> > are injured during training at higher rates then men are and they latter
> > substain further injury at their assigned duty posts.
>
> Raise the expectation and enforce it. Have recruits train physically
> before entering, etc, no pregnancy first tour you are here to perfom a
> critical job etc, get them to sign it.
This seems to be (one) reasonable arguement to some of the problems 'for'
woman in combat
>
> > > > Team work is what wins wars.
> > > > Part of being a team player is finding your nitch and doing it well.
> > > > If YOUR nitch is NOT field combat.. So what.
>
> > > Indeed but if combatants are needed (guess who would win a ground war
in
> > > US v China) and women are meeting the basic standard of combatant then
> > > they are under a national DUTY to enter combat.
>
> > The ones meeting it yes.
> > But what about the ones who are not?
>
> If needed, deploy elsewhere.
right.
But no bitching and winning "equal rights"
They Cut the mustard or they are out of combat and into support rolls.
>
>
> > > > Support rolls are equally (if not MORE) important as pulling the
trigger
> > in
> > > > the field.
>
> > > Depends on the situation actually. I agree that specialized training
and
> > > aptitude play a critical role in military matters.
>
> > > > Support rolls will NOT make women LESS then MEN.
>
> > > If women are not willing to FIGHT and DIE when necessary for the
> > > freedoms they enjoy then they do NOT deserve them. I will never
instill
> > > this notion in myself or any person in my proximity.
>
> > Good point.
> > One i had not considered women felt so strongly about.
>
> They ought to.
Not all think as you do though.
Mark Borgerson
I would rather that they have access--but with restrictions on
when they can publish. I'm reluctant to have the military be
the sole custodian of the history of any operation. Too much
CYA is possible. However, sometimes there might be weeks or
months of delay before publication, and that would be hard
for the media to accept.
Mark Borgerson
Angilion
[..]
>If men gave a damn about "needless death"
>in war they wouldn't wage any war, and if they gave a damn about
>protecting women from combat (death) they wouldn't wage war. EOS.
I'm sure that, if you sat down and thought about it, you would realise
that (to pick the biggest war), there would have been a great deal
of "needless death" if the Nazis ruled the world. They also didn't
seem to have any problem with killing women.
[..]
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else. (Anon)
Michael Snyder
Malcolm James wrote in message ...
>fyi
>
>When Parents Kill
>Why fathers do it. Why mothers do it.
>By Dahlia Lithwick
>Posted Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 3:00 PM PT
>
>
>
>Andrea Yates
>
>Women do not, by and large, make terrific criminals. In the United States,
>women commit only two crimes as frequently as men. The first is shoplifting.
>The second is the murder of their own children.
They come in a real close second on spouse murder too -- 60/40.
Of course, they aren't punished NEARLY as severely for it.
Parg will now claim that it's because they only kill with a wet noodle...
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> Because YOU jumped in this conservation and we were discussing women
> and training you NOT marines.(which are a bunch of pussys anyway)
oh come on.
> In the Army woman may server because of its more flexable "basic training"
so women don't train for combat in basic?
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C90F8AA...@udel.edu...
> > Says nothing about carrying a person for any distance. Also advanced
> > infantry training does not mention carrying a person, but it does
> > exclude women based on nothing but sex and I see no justification for
> > it.
> Maybe the drop out rate/fail rate in the past were too high.
Women have never entered AIT in the Army so no. Are you saying men can't
carry men?
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C90FE28...@udel.edu...
> > (as usual) ;)
> a simple smile would have done.
I know I'm such a bitch!
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
>
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C9104A7...@udel.edu...
docs that say
> women
> > > are injured during training at higher rates then men are and they latter
> > > substain further injury at their assigned duty posts.
> > Raise the expectation and enforce it. Have recruits train physically
> > before entering, etc, no pregnancy first tour you are here to perfom a
> > critical job etc, get them to sign it.
> This seems to be (one) reasonable arguement to some of the problems 'for'
> woman in combat
this is KIDS stuff IMO WD!
> > > > they are under a national DUTY to enter combat.
> > > The ones meeting it yes.
> > > But what about the ones who are not?
> > If needed, deploy elsewhere.
> right.
> But no bitching and winning "equal rights"
right.
But no bitching women in the field.
> They Cut the mustard or they are out of combat and into support rolls.
Yes, same as the men. There are thousands of jobs that NEED to be done
in the military.
> > > > If women are not willing to FIGHT and DIE when necessary for the
> > > > freedoms they enjoy then they do NOT deserve them. I will never
> instill
> > > > this notion in myself or any person in my proximity.
> > > Good point.
> > > One i had not considered women felt so strongly about.
> > They ought to.
> Not all think as you do though.
Now there's something I don't hear everyday ;)
Jen Larson
Angilion wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 06:54:22 -0500, Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote:
> [..]
> >If men gave a damn about "needless death"
> >in war they wouldn't wage any war, and if they gave a damn about
> >protecting women from combat (death) they wouldn't wage war. EOS.
> I'm sure that, if you sat down and thought about it, you would realise
> that (to pick the biggest war), there would have been a great deal
> of "needless death" if the Nazis ruled the world. They also didn't
> seem to have any problem with killing women.
I understand that Angillion, but exactly how potent would the Nazi's be
if no men showed up to do their bidding?
White~Dragon ®
Basic is exactly what it says Jen
Basic - basic training.
More like an evaluation of basic skills and physical fittness.
AIT which is advanced training in the specific MOS.
If your MOS is infantry, then there is where you get the real combat
training.
White~Dragon ®
The drop fail rate in basic is high for women.
AIT is 'Advanced Individual Trainning"
Everybody who has a 'job' in the militarty has been thru AIT and Basic.
So since there are many women performing many jobs in the military, they
have all been to AIT.
This is where you learn your MOS (Military Occupation Speciality)
If your MOS is artillery,supply,communication or what ever --this is where
you learn it "after" basic.
Everyone has to pass basic.
Now, if your MOS is a combat MOS, then this is where you get your actual
combat training.
And the training is harder, its longer, and its tougher then basic.
So its for this reason that when woman get injured in 'basic' they can never
make it to the real AIT combat training.
Basic training is where you are evaluated to see if you meet the basic
military standard to enter your MOS.
~wd
White~Dragon ®
White~Dragon ®
>
>
> "White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> >
> > "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3C9104A7...@udel.edu...
>
> docs that say
> > women
> > > > are injured during training at higher rates then men are and they
latter
> > > > substain further injury at their assigned duty posts.
>
> > > Raise the expectation and enforce it. Have recruits train physically
> > > before entering, etc, no pregnancy first tour you are here to perfom a
> > > critical job etc, get them to sign it.
>
> > This seems to be (one) reasonable arguement to some of the problems
'for'
> > woman in combat
>
> this is KIDS stuff IMO WD!
Explane please?
>
>
> > > > > they are under a national DUTY to enter combat.
>
> > > > The ones meeting it yes.
> > > > But what about the ones who are not?
>
> > > If needed, deploy elsewhere.
>
> > right.
> > But no bitching and winning "equal rights"
>
> right.
> But no bitching women in the field.
if they can handle it yes.
>
> > They Cut the mustard or they are out of combat and into support rolls.
>
> Yes, same as the men. There are thousands of jobs that NEED to be done
> in the military.
Right.
If men cant meet the standard they are out,
and the ones who could not make the grade have been cut out for years,
without
the bitching and crying "no fare!"
Will women treat trainning with the same attitude?
Or will we have to lower standards so things are "fair"
and discontinue abusive language?
>
>
> > > > > If women are not willing to FIGHT and DIE when necessary for the
> > > > > freedoms they enjoy then they do NOT deserve them. I will never
> > instill
> > > > > this notion in myself or any person in my proximity.
>
> > > > Good point.
> > > > One i had not considered women felt so strongly about.
>
> > > They ought to.
>
> > Not all think as you do though.
>
> Now there's something I don't hear everyday ;)
<smirk>
This issue will not go away.
So,
If women feel as you do, then they need to step up to the plate and give it
their best try,-and if they fail, be women enough to admit they simply do
not have what it takes.
Just as men do when they fail.
Its just that simple.
There is "real" equality.
~wd
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C91E85F...@udel.edu...
> > so women don't train for combat in basic?
> Basic is exactly what it says Jen
> Basic - basic training.
> More like an evaluation of basic skills and physical fittness.
> AIT which is advanced training in the specific MOS.
> If your MOS is infantry, then there is where you get the real combat
> training.
and women are excluded due to being women.
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C91E8BE...@udel.edu...
>
> Now, if your MOS is a combat MOS, then this is where you get your actual
> combat training.
> And the training is harder, its longer, and its tougher then basic.
> So its for this reason that when woman get injured in 'basic' they can never
> make it to the real AIT combat training.
They can never make it even if they out perform men in basic they are
excluded due to sex.
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
>
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C91EAC5...@udel.edu...
> > > This seems to be (one) reasonable arguement to some of the problems
> 'for'
> > > woman in combat
> > this is KIDS stuff IMO WD!
> Explane please?
Entrance standards being given to potential recruits up front and have
them advance to that physical standard prior to basic would be easy to
do.
> > > right.
> > > But no bitching and winning "equal rights"
> > right.
> > But no bitching women in the field.
> if they can handle it yes.
If they couldn't they would wash out, so if they make it they make it no
bitching.
> > Yes, same as the men. There are thousands of jobs that NEED to be done
> > in the military.
> Right.
> If men cant meet the standard they are out,
> and the ones who could not make the grade have been cut out for years,
> without
> the bitching and crying "no fare!"
> Will women treat trainning with the same attitude?
> Or will we have to lower standards so things are "fair"
> and discontinue abusive language?
I don't agree to lower any standard and I don't agree to censor
language, etc. If you can't mentally handle the head games of basic or
AIT then wash out.
> This issue will not go away.
> So,
> If women feel as you do, then they need to step up to the plate and give it
> their best try,-and if they fail, be women enough to admit they simply do
> not have what it takes.
> Just as men do when they fail.
> Its just that simple.
> There is "real" equality.
The one that is legally unavailable at this time in the US military.
michael price
evidence that a man would be thrown out of a combat unit for inability
to carry another man then he should post it. Jen will then pick up a
man (and we know she doesn't mind doing that ; ) ) and carry him.
Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message news:<3C8F9A65...@udel.edu>...
> Ian wrote:
> >
> > Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message news:<3C8E9678...@udel.edu>...
>
> > > Until you show me that standard that says all combatants must be able to
> > > carry an average man out of the combat area you're blowin out your ass.
>
> > I don't need to.
>
> Because you have a perfectly good ass to blow shit out of.
>
> Are you saying if you'd go into battle, just the two
> > of you, you'd be happy to know that if you were injured and unable to
> > walk, you'd die.
>
> Now name the battle where only two show up from the US.
>
> > You may Jen be able to turn around and say there's no standard that
> > requires this, I know very little of the US military (apart from its
> > history) however, talk is cheap.
>
> You sure as hell have no clue at all about the US Military.
>
> > You say there's no standard, there could easily be a standard to pick
> > up and carry a 210 lb man plus kit, say 500 metres, but it would prove
> > once and for all that women are just a liability on the battlefield.
>
> Or, you could just pull some stupid piece of shit out of your ass say
> it's necessary and only men can do it but they are not tested because
> they are men and are thusly immediately qualified.
>
>
> > Thus feminists, like yourself continue to maintain that there is no
> > need to be able to do that, because you like to hide behind rules.
>
> No, there is a definite structure in place when discussing the US
> Military and the training is comprehensive and well planned and thought
> out.
>
>
> > Writing as a man with self respect, hiding behind rules is just a sign
> > that one is an incomplete human being.
>
> Making up rules must be such a better thing. Oh to be a man and to be
> able to declare reality and have that be that.
>
>
> > I have no problem at all with people who say, "I'm just not good
> > enough, and never will be." They aren't trying to be something they
> > aren't. They realise it, and often then realise people are doing them
> > a big favour which requires them to owe a debt of honour.
>
>
> I have no problem at all with people who say that either.
>
> > I do have a problem with people who say, nay force, the rules to be
> > changed because they can't manage to pass them and cannot cope with
> > their own failure. It's a sign you weren't brought up properly.
>
> I can agree with that, however I have never seen a shred of evidence
> that in my life a combatant in the US military has had to carry a man as
> a standard of entrance. I could be wrong but I have just never seen any
> type of information to think it is so.
>
>
> The
> > net effect of dilution of standards or requirements (whether written
> > or implicit) is someone else's life in these cases. They feel they are
> > then in the organisation on their own merits, but whatever the entry
> > tests the job requirements have not changed, someone still has to do
> > the work. These people are then shirkers.
>
>
> If they can't do the job as outlined and perform to standards that are
> relevant to their final billet then I say wash them out or into a
> different billet, I do not agree that women should be excluded based on
> sex.
>
>
> > We already know that feminism either does not care about sacrificing
> > children's lives for its cause. It is clear it cares about noone apart
> > from women.
>
> Bastards.
>
> > Feminism hides behind rules. It forces them to be written, so it can
> > exploit the ambiguity of the English Language to its own advantage.
> > Its like tax evasion, but against one's _own_ country which is
> > unforgiveable. It is a moralless slag.
>
> What is unforgivable is being judged on your sex before having any other
> information. That is pathetic and sick and would make you a sexist
> bastard idiot from hell.
White~Dragon ®
White~Dragon ®
you Know this for a fact?
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C933D51...@udel.edu...
> > > So its for this reason that when woman get injured in 'basic' they can
> never
> > > make it to the real AIT combat training.
> > They can never make it even if they out perform men in basic they are
> > excluded due to sex.
> you Know this for a fact?
It's on the web site you posted for one. It's just plain known that
women are excluded from combat training.
Jen Larson
michael price wrote:
> Ohmigod! I'm agreeing with Jen again! I hate that!
I could care less.
If Ian has any
> evidence that a man would be thrown out of a combat unit for inability
> to carry another man then he should post it.
He doesn't.
Jen will then pick up a
> man (and we know she doesn't mind doing that ; ) ) and carry him.
I'm too old to enter the service now, but I can lift over 100 lbs. I
can't do it by myself unless he's my size (about 125) but I could
certainly help along with another person and carry a man, I've done it a
few times.
White~Dragon ®
Well, i cannot say i'm sorry, because i dont think women need to be in
combat.
If they can pass the training, then let them i guess.
I'm sure as time goes by this will change and women will be allowed to serve
combat rolls.
Angilion
Exactly how potent would the Nazi's have been if no men showed up
to oppose them? *That's* what was "waging war". If no-one opposed
them, there wouldn't have been a war, would there?
I didn't expect you to make the "war is men's fault" argument, which
pisses on the many graves of the men who died in war to prevent worse,
places *all* men on the level of the worst men and makes no distinction
between the men who were Nazis and the men who opposed them.
I didn't think you were *that* sexist.
Jen Larson
"White~Dragon Ž" wrote:
> "Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C93B4C8...@udel.edu...
> > It's on the web site you posted for one. It's just plain known that
> > women are excluded from combat training.
> Well, i cannot say i'm sorry, because i dont think women need to be in
> combat.
But men need to be. This propogates war.
> If they can pass the training, then let them i guess.
Yup.
> I'm sure as time goes by this will change and women will be allowed to serve
> combat rolls.
Yup.
Jen Larson
Angilion wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:01:24 -0500, Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote:
> Exactly how potent would the Nazi's have been if no men showed up
> to oppose them? *That's* what was "waging war". If no-one opposed
> them, there wouldn't have been a war, would there?
If no one supported them, no war.
> I didn't expect you to make the "war is men's fault" argument, which
> pisses on the many graves of the men who died in war to prevent worse,
> places *all* men on the level of the worst men and makes no distinction
> between the men who were Nazis and the men who opposed them.
> I didn't think you were *that* sexist.
I think it's partly women's fault as well, because of complacency. I
truly believe that if women GO to war with men, men will stop going. Men
"feel" that they must indeed go to war all over the world, that is their
job when the call is sounded. They just go. They are brainwashed that it
is for them to do, they are going to be killing bad men (men doing the
same thing they are, rallying around on the word of a few) and men who
will harm their life in some way (wife and children too) and off they go
killing for some person (not always a man) though if they refused to go
on both sides the ones screaming for them to go would have zero power to
wage war. Do you think that all the men who fought for the Nazi's were
born evil and were just waiting hoping that war would come, perhaps
stirred it some? Or were they brainwashed from birth to do the death
bids of the powerful? Well one thing men hate is seeing women getting
slaughtered in mass numbers but numb if it's just men. Women need to go
do some death in order to explain exactly how henious war is. As long as
men are brainwashed from birth that they are expendable and to do the
bidding of dealing death for the powerful and wome are isolated (as much
as possible) it will continue un-checked for-ever.