Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why do women think they can make good soldiers?
  • Subject: Why do women think they can make good soldiers?
Subject: Why do women think they can make good soldiers?

Well, I've been economical with the truth.


Posted by: MrMassakka
Men are generally physically superior, but that doesn't mean women are completely incapable of being a good soldier.

I would bet money on it that everyone in the Flood would be killed in a hand-to-hand combat with a female soldier.
I disagree, I can defend my self quite well, but you just included yourself in that list as well.

  • 11.30.2012 12:12 PM PDT


Posted by: CEASARSALAD7
N P W M,J I

  • 11.30.2012 12:13 PM PDT


Posted by: Silent Breath

Posted by: brandorobot
Strength seems irrelevant when you're all carrying assault rifles.

Except they carry more than assault rifles, and actually have to use physical strength for various tasks. You're not in a gunfight all the time. It's not like call of duty like you seem to think it is.

Why does every argument go back to physical strength with you? How much physical strength do you think they don't have, to the point where it becomes a definite weakness in combat?

[Edited on 11.30.2012 12:14 PM PST]

  • 11.30.2012 12:13 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

I can see the issue from certain points of view, specifically because the requirements that women have to meet are lower. From that perspective, I totally understand the gripe presented here. Now if the woman is capable of meeting the standards set fourth for males, I see no issue whatsoever in having them in the military.

If you are speaking regarding their capabilities as a soldier, well there is really nothing showing that women have any consistently better or worse judgement than men overall, so I don't see why there would be an issue. Todays soldiers are not muscle bound, they are simply physically capable, and as far as I know the training is the same even if the PT requirements are not.

[Edited on 11.30.2012 12:16 PM PST]

  • 11.30.2012 12:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: Silent Breath
Posted by: Recon Number 54
When a high-velocity round impacts, destabilizes and causes an enemies skull to explode from hydro-static shock.... The fact that the finger that pulled the trigger belonged to someone who has breasts? Probably not the last concern that went through that person's brain before it splattered.

There is also a HUGE psychological statement being made if/when a society and/or military normalizes the use of women in combat roles.

For example, the IDF. By having a both-gender fighting force, they are essentially saying (to themselves, their potential enemies, and the world) we are VERY serious about our own defense and this shows just HOW serious we are.

Did you read through my thread? I already addressed the gun issue.

And utterly invalidated it by saying that menstruation makes someone incapable of fighting.

I see little point in attempting to exchange views if you're convinced of that particular one.

  • 11.30.2012 12:14 PM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

My younger brother is a National Guard 1st Lt MP who rotated back from Afghanistan last December. His unit saw action twice, and both times his best soldiers were women.

You may find this a hard pill to swallow, but women already are serving in combat roles, and are doing as well as the men.

So, OP, you are as wrong as you can get.

  • 11.30.2012 12:15 PM PDT


Posted by: Silent Breath

Posted by: Teh Teddy Bear

Posted by: Silent Breath
Women can't do many of these things for long or without problems. Not to mention they get periods. That's a problem. A very big problem.

I hope your not serious.

With grammar like that and poor thinking skills, I hope you're the one who's not serious. There's no way a female can engage in combat when they're on their cycle. I wouldn't expect you to know anything about women, though.

lol, people always go for insults when their argument is failing. It seems to me like the majority of the people on this thread disagree with you.

  • 11.30.2012 12:15 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

It was once said that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could reproduce the works of shakespeare... Now thanks to the internet we know that this is not true
==============================================
No programmer can pick up a TV remote without thinking what it would take to add a stun gun. [...] Their motto is 'if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet

0/10

obvious silent rose alt.

[Edited on 11.30.2012 12:16 PM PST]

  • 11.30.2012 12:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No, I don't think they would be good soldiers unless they are on steoroids.

  • 11.30.2012 12:16 PM PDT

Well, I've been economical with the truth.

But on topic, I don't see why women couldn't serve on the front line, if not that, everywhere else. Medics, Scouts (there are some very good females runners), explosive teams, mortars, vehicular combat and so on.

I still think with the same amount of physical and mental training, disregarding the gender anyone could serve, theoretically. (if you think some women can't handle it well there are also a lot of men who can't either, that part is all in the mind)

  • 11.30.2012 12:16 PM PDT

Reporting for duty


Posted by: TURTLER9

Posted by: CEASARSALAD7
N P W M,J I
Dont get it

  • 11.30.2012 12:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

For all questions with answers unknown to you, the proper procedure is to assume the answer is peanut butter.

While that may be true, I'm just going to pretend otherwise.

I don't really have a problem with them being in the military, but they shouldn't be allowed in any infantry-related roles. They, on average, are not capable of the same physical tasks as men. If captured, they will be violated in every way imaginable. They have monthly periods, which affects both their mental and physical abilities. They face hazing by male soldiers. It's just a bad idea. I have no problem with them being in a logistical or medical position, but women should not be eligible for any positions related to infantry or anything that involves "grunt work."

  • 11.30.2012 12:17 PM PDT


Posted by: Silent Breath

Posted by: Xanarxses
that logic makes no sense. And besides I don't think that soldiers are wrestling their enemies so strength isn't a very valid factor.

You clearly have no idea how warfare is conducted. Being an infantryman requires physical stamina, surviving on scarce resources for days, constantly carrying a weapon, running, lifting various equipment and hauling it everywhere, etc. Women can't do many of these things for long or without problems. Not to mention they get periods. That's a problem. A very big problem.
The difference between men and women is not too big in these requirements though. You seem to mistaken female soldiers for housewives in armor. No, the female body can be just as trained and used as the male, with generally a rather small difference. Both could patrol days through the desert and still run in a firefight.

But please don't act as if every soldier needs to have the physical abilities of a special force unit. Depending in what country you are, there are also obese people accepted and trained. And in the field, one obese or a women is just as useful for fire support as a bodybuilder.

[Edited on 11.30.2012 12:18 PM PST]

  • 11.30.2012 12:17 PM PDT

"Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened."
- Dr. Seuss


Posted by: Recon Number 54
Warfare is not always about who has the strongest footsoldiers.

It can be an important factor, but it is not the only or the most important factor. Especially as more and more weapons systems become ever "smarter" and more "stand off".

  • 11.30.2012 12:18 PM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith


Posted by: Silent Breath

I'm saying they're inferior to men, which is why we shouldn't waste the military's resources on them.


How have you not been banned yet?

  • 11.30.2012 12:18 PM PDT

Well, I've been economical with the truth.


Posted by: Silent Breath

Posted by: Xanarxses
that logic makes no sense. And besides I don't think that soldiers are wrestling their enemies so strength isn't a very valid factor.

You clearly have no idea how warfare is conducted. Being an infantryman requires physical stamina, surviving on scarce resources for days, constantly carrying a weapon, running, lifting various equipment and hauling it everywhere, etc. Women can't do many of these things for long or without problems. Not to mention they get periods. That's a problem. A very big problem.
I'm pretty sure a period would just make them angrier, so in a way being a more fearless fighter then men.

  • 11.30.2012 12:18 PM PDT

Posted by: Silent Breath
So basically you're being immature by disregarding my other points because you disagree with one?

If anything you are disregarding his points.

  • 11.30.2012 12:18 PM PDT