Kill the women first.

[Gimmadonis]

I meant like more like "GRRRRRR I GOTTA KILL KILL KILLKILLKILLKILL- OH SHIT I MADE A MISTAKE" kind of aggresion. You don't need to be a monsterous killwhore to fight in combat, you need to be able to follow orders.

You need to be able to see the death of your brothers, and take the lives of your brothers, all while being calm and collected. The stress of combat is insane. I don't care if women are in support roles, but they can't handle the front lines without a shit ton of expensive training.

Men can't, either. Alot of male soldiers get post-traumatic-stress-disorder, but they're still allowed in.

A certain level of aggresion, which women can easily achieve, is good, just not blinding rage where you can make alot of mistakes.

I don't know why you think this "blind rage" thing is so widespread among male soldiers. There is a such thing as military discipline that keeps people in line and following orders reguardless.

Besides, I don't know about the strange alien world you come from, but on earth women are well known for being much more emotional then men. Its even considered one of their strongpoints, but emotions are not something ideal to have on a battlefeild.

Because I'm sure male soldiers have never felt bad about killing anyone [/end sarcasm]. Women are equally in the know as men that what has to be done, has to be done. They're probably no more likely to hesitate (which I'm sure alot of male soldiers do) when they need to take a shot.

[BladeSlayer Land]

http://www.washingtonian.com/print/arti ... /2182.html

[Virtud Tierra]

Because I'm sure male soldiers have never felt bad about killing anyone [/end sarcasm]. Women are equally in the know as men that what has to be done, has to be done. They're probably no more likely to hesitate (which I'm sure alot of male soldiers do) when they need to take a shot.

You seem to be fixated on this idea that the only thing that a combat soldier does is pull triggers.

[Anti-Social Darwinism]

I meant like more like "GRRRRRR I GOTTA KILL KILL KILLKILLKILLKILL- OH SHIT I MADE A MISTAKE" kind of aggresion. You don't need to be a monsterous killwhore to fight in combat, you need to be able to follow orders.

You need to be able to see the death of your brothers, and take the lives of your brothers, all while being calm and collected. The stress of combat is insane. I don't care if women are in support roles, but they can't handle the front lines without a shit ton of expensive training.

Men can't, either. Alot of male soldiers get post-traumatic-stress-disorder, but they're still allowed in.

A certain level of aggresion, which women can easily achieve, is good, just not blinding rage where you can make alot of mistakes.

I don't know why you think this "blind rage" thing is so widespread among male soldiers. There is a such thing as military discipline that keeps people in line and following orders reguardless.

Besides, I don't know about the strange alien world you come from, but on earth women are well known for being much more emotional then men. Its even considered one of their strongpoints, but emotions are not something ideal to have on a battlefeild.

Actually, women aren't more emotional than men, the emotions are the same in type and intensity, they're just processed differently - this is as much a matter of conditioning and training as it is of genetics and hormones. Women and men can be taught to control and channel emotions appropriately for situations. What has been demonstrated is that, while men are better at linear (logical) thinking, women are better at intuitive action and are more pragmatic than men - and, pragmatically speaking, women demonstrate more emotionalism than men because it has been, in the past, the practical thing to do; how do you get men to do what you want - turn on the tears. Hopefully, this will, as women go from being protected inferiors to equals, become a thing of the past.

[KaIashnikov]

I don't know why you think this "blind rage" thing is so widespread among male soldiers. There is a such thing as military discipline that keeps people in line and following orders reguardless.

I've never seen blind rage out of any of my men, If I did I would smack them. Back when I was just a Corporal I had every reason to be mad, I was shot twice, I stayed calm and cool. Then ran to the other squads radioman to radio in a JDAM and a Medivac for two. Would a women be able to do that? A steaming piece of lead was stuck in my shoulder, I could smell my tissue sautéing. Before getting hit again in the vest a 1/2 inch away from the previous. Then running to the next squad?

[Muravyets]

Okay, so does that mean that, according to BladeSlayer Land, women should be allowed to serve in combat because they can sit in a bucket of ice water a little longer than guys can? Or does it mean that, according to BladeSlayer Land, only men should be allowed to serve in combat because men mind it less than women do when they get both their legs and half their head blown off by a IED?

No, women should not be able to serve because they are weaker and have a lower pain tolerance than men. The 10% of above average women that can pass the entrance tests aren't worth the distraction they would cause.

So in other words, they should not be allowed to serve because, due to their supposedly lower pain threshold (which your own source shows to be mostly bunk, btw'), they would mind it more than men would if they got both their legs and half their head blown off by an IED, which I assume must hurt a bit.

Do you have even the slightest clue how fucking irrelevant this strength and pain bullshit is to modern warfare?

[BladeSlayer Land]

Incredibly relevant, you're also ignoring the psychological aspect. Read all of my sources before trying to counter my arguments. Perhaps you could post some of your own? No? Too much? I thought so.

[Gimmadonis]

Ever heard of PTSD?

Apparently, men can't handle it, either.

Men handle it much better than women.
http://www.apa.org/releases/ptsd_rates.html
Read that.

Evidence? Source?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 434024.ece
Read that.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6295
And That.

Awesome. Your argument against women, is that men lack control.

I've already addressed that, that's not what I meant. Men have difficulties dealing with wounded women, our natural protectiveness of women causes a lack of rational though. Read the thread to find out more.

Then certain women are indeed incapable. As are certain men. Those who are injured simply need more training to physically uplift them.

[Muravyets]

Women can fight, I'm sure they could fight well.

But can they pull a trigger when looking strait into their opponents eyes? Can they pull a trigger even though their target is a women or a child? (It happens, children and women avenge their husband/father by shooting at us, no one wants to return fire but someone has too)

Women planting bombs on behalf of insurgents and terrorists don't seem to have a problem with killing women and children.

[Muravyets]

Women can fight, I'm sure they could fight well.

But can they pull a trigger when looking strait into their opponents eyes? Can they pull a trigger even though their target is a women or a child? (It happens, children and women avenge their husband/father by shooting at us, no one wants to return fire but someone has too)

Is this a serious question, or are you seriously about to argue that shooting people somehow REQUIRES a penis.

I think you've just admitted, on a public forum, to deliberately breaching Geneva Conventions and Protocols, by the way.

Perhaps he is mistaking shooting people with writing your name in the snow.

[Virtud Tierra]

Actually, women aren't more emotional than men, the emotions are the same in type and intensity, they're just processed differently - this is as much a matter of conditioning and training as it is of genetics and hormones. Women and men can be taught to control and channel emotions appropriately for situations. What has been demonstrated is that, while men are better at linear (logical) thinking, women are better at intuitive action and are more pragmatic than men - and, pragmatically speaking, women demonstrate more emotionalism than men because it has been, in the past, the practical thing to do; how do you get men to do what you want - turn on the tears. Hopefully, this will, as women go from being protected inferiors to equals, become a thing of the past.

Ok, assuming you are correct, how exactly is it worth it to provide all of this extra, special training to prepare high-school age civilian females when men are much more adaptive to the demands of military life and combat?

I see plenty of reasons why women should not be on the frontlines and absolutely no reason why they should be one the frontlines. Its basically just defending against arguments when you have none of your own.

So, pray tell, what good would this special catering and drugging and training accomplish for the combat line units?

[Grave_n_idle]

You suggested that the inability to carry huge amounts of gear renders the entirety of a gender unsuitable for armed forces.

No, not inability. I've done it before with about 180 pounds of gear in 4 feet of water,the amount of gear won't change from person to person. 120lb female + 180lbs Extended Operation Pack = Not going to happen, 220lb Male + 180lbs Extended Operation Pack = Pain in my ass, but easily done.

160lb female+180lbs Extended Operation Pack=pain in the ass, but fairly easily done. 1) Not all men are 220lbs. 2)IF A WOMAN CAN DO THIS, SHE SHOULD BE ABLE TO JOIN. WHY CANT YOU PEOPLE GET THIS POINT!

It's worth pointing out that the average Marine weighs about 170lbs (for men) and 130 lbs (for women).

It's also worth pointing out that the Approach March Load allowed on a pack is about 45% of the average weight - so a 170 lb man should be carrying UP TO maybe 90 lbs of pack - and that's not for an engagement scenario.

In an engagement scenario, the Assault Load should be 30% - or about 60 lbs of pack.

Even in no-support scenarios, where there is no combat contact - the Existence Load is only 60%-75% of body weight - so - about 130 lbs of pack.

Conclusion: KaIashnikov is faking being a Marine.

[Muravyets]

Training takes time and money. You also keep ignoring the major distraction women would cause.

Is that the same major distraction that racially integrating military units would cause?

Or is it the major distraction that is caused by all the women currently serving in the armed forces in combat zones, frequently facing hostile fire, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan right now?

[BladeSlayer Land]

Then certain women are indeed incapable. As are certain men. Those who are injured simply need more training to physically uplift them.

That wasn't the point and you know it.

[Gimmadonis]

Actually, women aren't more emotional than men, the emotions are the same in type and intensity, they're just processed differently - this is as much a matter of conditioning and training as it is of genetics and hormones. Women and men can be taught to control and channel emotions appropriately for situations. What has been demonstrated is that, while men are better at linear (logical) thinking, women are better at intuitive action and are more pragmatic than men - and, pragmatically speaking, women demonstrate more emotionalism than men because it has been, in the past, the practical thing to do; how do you get men to do what you want - turn on the tears. Hopefully, this will, as women go from being protected inferiors to equals, become a thing of the past.

Ok, assuming you are correct, how exactly is it worth it to provide all of this extra, special training to prepare high-school age civilian females when men are much more adaptive to the demands of military life and combat?

I see plenty of reasons why women should not be on the frontlines and absolutely no reason why they should be one the frontlines. Its basically just defending against arguments when you have none of your own.

So, pray tell, what good would this special catering and drugging and training accomplish for the combat line units?

You see, I've done the math. And I might be wrong, but hear me out.

Women being allowed in the military/ on the frontlines = more soldiers.

More soldiers = more bullets/ knives/ explosives/ other unpleasent things our enemies have to worry about.


Again, I might be wrong, but that's my argument.

[KaIashnikov]

Yes, How do you prepare High School females to go from nails and pursues to bullets and hand grenades?

[Muravyets]

Also look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoHCZyjgL3Y

Soon, soldiers won't even have to carry their damn gear.

Cool, if that is implemented despite it's incredible cost, I will give women my support to join the military.

Women are already in the military. In front line units. Geez-fucking-gods, do you even take a minute a week to look at reality? I am so tired of these arguments that are nothing but some net-kids fantasies.

[BladeSlayer Land]

We have more than enough soldiers, not to mention the surplus of reserves we have.

[New Kereptica]

We have more than enough soldiers, not to mention the surplus of reserves we have.

More is generally better?

[Gimmadonis]

Yes, How do you prepare High School females to go from nails and pursues to bullets and hand grenades?

This is under the assumption that all women like these things, and that these kind of women join the military.

There are such things as "tomboys".

[Anti-Social Darwinism]

Incredibly relevant, you're also ignoring the psychological aspect. Read all of my sources before trying to counter my arguments. Perhaps you could post some of your own? No? Too much? I thought so.

I believe you're ignoring history.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... 32703a.htm

Women in Celtic society, before they had children, went into battle with their husbands. They were the first teachers of sworplay and battle tactics to their children - both male and female. Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni, was a warleader. Grainne ni Malley was a female pirate captain (and later fleet leader) who led Queen Elizabeth I's much vaunted sea dogs a merry chase. The Nordic Shield Maidens were the real life model for the Valkyrie. There have been women warriors and war leaders in various Native American tribes. Women have gone to war from time immemorial and the only thing said about it was that they did a damned good job. If you want to dredge up Victorian fabrications to support your contentions, do so, it won't change the facts.

[Grave_n_idle]

Men handle it much better than women.
http://www.apa.org/releases/ptsd_rates.html
Read that.

That doesn't say what you claim it says.

It says that women are more likely to encounter situations (such as sexual assault) that have a more pronounced weighting towards PTSD than other types of trauma.

It also doesn't differentiate between incidence of PTSD, and REPORTING of PTSD.

I've already addressed that, that's not what I meant. Men have difficulties dealing with wounded women,

Right - so the 'weakness' is in the men, not the women.

[Gimmadonis]

Besides, only the ones fit enough to pass training will make it to the front lines anyways, so everyone wins.

[BladeSlayer Land]

Also look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoHCZyjgL3Y

Soon, soldiers won't even have to carry their damn gear.

Cool, if that is implemented despite it's incredible cost, I will give women my support to join the military.

Women are already in the military. In front line units. Geez-fucking-gods, do you even take a minute a week to look at reality? I am so tired of these arguments that are nothing but some net-kids fantasies.

Women are in the military, in support roles. The 30% of military jobs that require front lines combat are not available to women. Try reading up on the topic before trying to act intelligent.

More is generally better?

Our military budget isn't high enough to support more soldiers.

[Virtud Tierra]

You suggested that the inability to carry huge amounts of gear renders the entirety of a gender unsuitable for armed forces.

No, not inability. I've done it before with about 180 pounds of gear in 4 feet of water,the amount of gear won't change from person to person. 120lb female + 180lbs Extended Operation Pack = Not going to happen, 220lb Male + 180lbs Extended Operation Pack = Pain in my ass, but easily done.

160lb female+180lbs Extended Operation Pack=pain in the ass, but fairly easily done. 1) Not all men are 220lbs. 2)IF A WOMAN CAN DO THIS, SHE SHOULD BE ABLE TO JOIN. WHY CANT YOU PEOPLE GET THIS POINT!

It's worth pointing out that the average Marine weighs about 170lbs (for men) and 130 lbs (for women).

It's also worth pointing out that the Approach March Load allowed on a pack is about 45% of the average weight - so a 170 lb man should be carrying UP TO maybe 90 lbs of pack - and that's not for an engagement scenario.

In an engagement scenario, the Assault Load should be 30% - or about 60 lbs of pack.

Even in no-support scenarios, where there is no combat contact - the Existence Load is only 60%-75% of body weight - so - about 130 lbs of pack.

Conclusion: KaIashnikov is faking being a Marine.

Kalshnikov is probably a 16 y/o DEPPER but his point is valid anyways. Its not even about meeting training goals or keeping up with the guys in a ruckmarch back stateside, its having the physical aptitude to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done.

There is a lot of hard work to be on the frontline, digging foxholes in frozen mud, filling endless amounts of sandbags, unloading trucks full of heavy shit, hauling weapons and you are expected to beable to fireman carry the heaviest guy in your unit and RUN with him on your back. I've never met a female soldier that could fireman carry me, my gear, bodyarmor and all and run. I've never met any female anywhere that could even lift me up off the ground, and I weight 175, about 200 pounds wearing an IBA, LBV, ammo, personal weapons and everything else.