sad how many people are closed minded.
-
Cherrydc2 — 12 years ago(October 20, 2013 12:42 PM)
This is the one time I don't think women should be in combat. One thing that keeps them out is this. Enemy doesn't kill the woman but repeatedly rapes them. That's the fear I have for woman being in combat and two. You will never see a woman S.E.A.LPERIOD!
-
lance-0001 — 12 years ago(December 13, 2013 12:57 PM)
Enemy doesn't get time to rape women in actual combat. He's more concerned with saving his own ass most of the time.
And besides, it's not your place to be afraid for them. If a woman qualifies for the post, and proves to be as capable as any other man on the field(or least near the same level) then there is no reason to stop her. Any risks involved are well known to her, and despite knowing them if she is determined to sign up, then it's her own decision. And we should respect that. -
fsword-1 — 11 years ago(October 01, 2014 04:17 AM)
You are incorrect Lance. I personally know of a story during WWII during the invasion of the Japanese occupied islands where a U.S Soldier raped a Japanese woman. As was typical when you have people holed up in caves, the U.S. first went in with flame throwers. The Japanese officers often kept women there to perform various tasks suited to them. As the troops moved in afterwards there was a women, severely burned, but still alive. The soldier then proceeded to rape her. It was probably the most disgusting act I have heard in combat. And remember, the South Pacific was NOT like the European theater, there was no "leave" for the soldiers and sailors there. Ever since hearing that I have been very opposed to women in combat roles.
-
Royalcourtier — 11 years ago(June 21, 2014 02:32 PM)
Despite claims (false) about Israel using women in combat roles, no civilised country in modern times has actually seen women employed in infantry combat. However many women are deployed with infantry in roles such as medics, and in associated corps. They are trained to fight, and do sometimes find themselves in combat. They are uniformly unsuccessful.
Woman may in many cases be able to meet minimum strength levels for military service, but cannot with exceptions too few to count meet the very high standards of special forces. It will be a cold day in Hell when women fairly pass SF training.
Race and sex has nothing to do with selection, it is simply a fact that virtually no women, and few men, can meet the standards of physical and mental toughness required.
Source: common sense, and 14 years in the navy (in training and recruitment). -
fsword-1 — 11 years ago(October 01, 2014 04:12 AM)
Most feminists will tell you that women can do everything a man can do. But that isn't true. By nature men are much more violent than women, just look at our prison system for proof. And combat is extremely violent. The men who join SF do so because they like this violence. But more than that, there is a bond among men in combat units. A true brotherhood that, try as they might, women will never share in. This brotherhood only works with men and is the reason so many SF teams are so successful. It will fail if they try to co-ed these teams. it's just the way it is.
-
ShadowsGathered — 11 years ago(October 10, 2014 06:04 PM)
Men and women are fairly well matched mentally, but physically is a different story any feminist who thinks a woman can do anything a man can is full of crap.
~ the hardest thing in this world is to live in it ~ -
grahamvandyke — 11 years ago(January 12, 2015 06:11 AM)
All the equality talk in the world does not excuse the fact that men are stronger, faster, have denser bones, better mechanical levers, better endurance and produce far more testosterone than women. Granted there are women who are exceptionally strong for their gender, but it's not that common.
You can't think that being a soldier is the mere notion of knowing how to aim a gun or swing a knife. It's a lot more than that. -
thepixinator — 11 years ago(January 17, 2015 11:23 AM)
Yeah, all you "women can't be soldiers" macho men need to go tell that to all the women killing ISIS in Syria and Kurdistan.
http://www.stripes.com/news/female-fighters-of-the-pkk-may-be-the-isla mic-state-s-worst-nightmare-1.300259
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-female-fighters-kur ds-20140910-photogallery.html
http://utopiathecollapse.com/2014/10/06/kurdish-female-fighter-blows-u p-herself-at-isis-gathering-yes-its-getting-this-out-of-control/
https://thenypost.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/kurdish-women-take-up-arms- against-islamic-state/?preview=true&preview_id=6672986&preview _nonce=c449bee1ea
They're more bad-ass than any of you World-of-Warcraft-playin' armchair soldiers will ever be. I'd let them defend my sorry ass any day.A life lived in fear is a life half-lived
Strictly Ballroom -
Mattfinbell — 11 years ago(January 26, 2015 10:06 PM)
I agree but the sexes wont be equal until man can get pregnant.
what if there were no weapons?
Yatagan
Haha, another ignorant fool that knows nothing about combat. There's more to fighting than just pressing a trigger sunshine and face it, women just don't cut it as infantry.
Look up woman in the civil war and Revotinary wars
jstevens-967-140993
Really, Yatagan? Well, I hate to burst your little bubble but woman DO fight in combat and even, on occasion, do lead - in the Special Activities Division of the CIA (the paramilitary troops of the CIA). I personally know of one woman who lead a team covertly into enemy territory in 2002 and successfully completed the mission, despite a fierce enemy attack. Naturally, being CIA there was no public announcement but it happens and, honestly, when you are in combat you don't really care the sex of your team members, just how well they can shoot.
So I don't know how you (supposedly) knew women couldn't "cut it" but perhaps you should move to the 21st century and forget the whole Neanderthal thing. And, if you have actually served and been in combat, then you should know better and, if you did not serve, then you should simply shove it.
why wasnt it talked about? Is she still active? is she retired? If she talked about her experience we could get more females in Bond that are not just the woman bond sleeps with or if he does there equals like May Day
Cherrydc2
This is the one time I don't think women should be in combat. One thing that keeps them out is this. Enemy doesn't kill the woman but repeatedly rapes them. That's the fear I have for woman being in combat and two. You will never see a woman S.E.A.LPERIOD!
Oh Man in the military also have been raped and its by there own comrades in arms
Hopefully one day
fsword-1
Most feminists will tell you that women can do everything a man can do. But that isn't true. By nature men are much more violent than women, just look at our prison system for proof. And combat is extremely violent. The men who join SF do so because they like this violence. But more than that, there is a bond among men in combat units. A true brotherhood that, try as they might, women will never share in. This brotherhood only works with men and is the reason so many SF teams are so successful. It will fail if they try to co-ed these teams. it's just the way it is.
feminists are anti-man and will say anything and do anything to get in the ranks of man. If it is a brotherhood they wouldnt rape there brothers and some have. Then when there brother has been raped they call him buddy -
thepixinator — 11 years ago(February 19, 2015 12:53 PM)
"feminists are anti-man" ???
Feminists just want their equal rights recognized under the law. That takes nothing away from men. It simply legally ensures women receive what they SHOULD already have: Equal opportunity, equal pay, and legal recourse against discrimination. Feminists are not anti-man. If you really believe that, you are sadly mistaken and have been sold a bill of goods by someone who has a strong fear of seeing women being treated equally for some reason, which is usually greed, insecurity, or fear. If the constitution said "All women and men are created equal" nothing would be taken from or enacted against men. It's so obvious.A life lived in fear is a life half-lived
Strictly Ballroom -
Mattfinbell — 11 years ago(February 19, 2015 03:21 PM)
They have beep everything my body my child!
When a man can get pregnant then and only then will we have equality for the sexes!
No actually I did want more strong female characters and such but then females say I am the weaker sex and I need man to protect me -
snakeye808 — 10 years ago(January 11, 2016 11:43 PM)
Feminists most certainly do not care about equality, which is why you'll never hear them complain about anything that favors women at the expense of men. They are specifically and solely concerned with gaining as many advantages as they can for women, and they're plan for achieving that goal is to mainly bash men in every way imaginable.
Anyways, G.I. Jane was a rather revolutionary film since it was among the first 'women can be badasses too' films. Nowadays we are being overwhelmed by women soldiers/assassins who are beating up herds of muscular men with their bare hands. I think we had more ass-kicking women movies this past year than men in these roles. Buff guys like Arnold, Stallone and Van Damme have been replaced by women
-
mighty_frogman — 9 years ago(May 24, 2016 04:53 PM)
I agree with you. That is how it should be. However we live in the real world with imperfect people and things do not always work the way they should ideally.
Men win wars. It is that simple. It has always been that way and will always be that way. For men to be able to win those wars they need to be set up so they can succeed. When it comes to women in combat roles, that is more important than anywhere else. In combat units you have mostly type A personalities, who pride themselves on their machismo. This involves protecting women, children, and those who are weaker. Urgayle's character makes reference to the Israel military and when they men acted in instinctive ways to try and protect women, who were essentially already dead. This compromised the mission. Accomplishing the mission is more important than diversity, feelings, loss of life, etc. It is why we fight.
As sexist as it may be to say, women can be a distraction on the battlefield. These are often some of the toughest, most capable and efficient men in the world so statements like "get over it" do not apply. If it was that simple, they would. Many men, myself included, were raised from a young age to watch out for and protect women. This is a pretty noble trait in civilian world. However it is a liability in combat. A liability that will get you and your teammates killed.
At best the most we will ever see, without horrifically lowering the standards, is 1% of women in Special Operations Force. That means the other 99% are the men. Do you compromise the 99% to accommodate the 1%? Of course not.
I don't care who is fighting beside me. But many men in my unit do care. If those men are not 100% focused on their job, because they are watching out for a woman, I am more likely to not go home to my family.
Some day we may see women in combat roles. It needs to be left up to the military to figure out how to do it. We integrated people of color and we will integrate gays and women too. But we need to be left alone to do it. People who have never served a day in uniform need to stay out of this discussion because it is a world they don't have the first clue about.
Do you really want equality and gender blindness? Start by eliminating the men's and women's divisions in the Olympics. Everybody competes in the same events. To put that in perspective look at the 100M event. The fastest time ever ran by a female is Florence Joyner's 10.49. No woman has ever ran faster than that in all of recorded history. In the 2012 Olympics the slowest men's time to qualify for the medal race was 10.02 (slowest time of those who didn't qualify was 10.31. The fastest woman in all of recorded history not only would have not qualified for the medal race, but would have been dead last in the semi-finals. Actually that is being generous because she wouldn't have even made the US team because the slowest runner they had ran a 10.08 at the Olympics and Team USA's qualifying time was 10.28. The greatest female sprinter in American history wouldn't have even made the 2012 Olympic team. Would this be any different in any other sport? We've never seen a woman in the NFL, NHL, NBA, or MLB for a reason. If you want equality, where we won't be shipping our mistakes home in body bags, then start with sports to see how suitable women are when side by side with the men. -
breno_bacci — 9 years ago(June 03, 2016 05:22 PM)
I get it! You want to be alone with the boys. You want to have them all for yourself, so you are free to do all that ambiguous horseplays we know goes on on locker rooms in sports and the military. You don't want the competition women would pose for the attention of your homeboys, when you're all stationed together during combat.
I'm only partly kidding, I mean I'm a guy but I haven't been in the military. I actually like and respect what the military does to a guy on a physical level, with all the exercise and training, tactics beep and whatnot. But unless you're born rich, you gotta be pretty stupid to go out there and fight rich people's war. Or you've got to be blinded by faith, either in some christian god or in American exceptionalism, to be fighting these wars for ideological reasons.
Before you go all mad calling me an useless hippie, have in mind that my mindset is a direct reaction to all the stupid things the military has done. Barely any war fought on the 20th and 21st century is justifiable on moral grounds - almost all of them only happened out of greed, or because the military just wanted to see who could swing their cocks the hardest. So many wars for stupid reasons has turned most of us, specially civilians, pretty cynical about this supposedly higher moral code you military guys seem to be so proud about.
So all this "testing to the limit", "toughest man on Earth" crap we see in this movie, and so many others, but also coming from military and law enforcement real people we all come across at some point in our lives, all this sounds pretty silly, like grown men playing super-hero versions of themselves, to a lot of people among us - the normals. It's just comic, sounding as vapid as whatever politicians or religious bigots say.
You bring a point about the "seriousness" of combat science, and why women shouldn't be allowed in. You even give a hint of understanding what real progress means, when you say "maybe some day in the future" women will be acting on combat missions. It's funny for me that you can't see the absurdity of the fact that, for you and your notion of future, there will always be war.
You may think you're being realistic and adult about it, but I find it pathetic. War never solved anything, and yet you are unable to consider any alternative to it.
Women wanna get shot while fighting to try to steal an oil field from one of the richest families in the world, only to give it to another of the richest families in the world? Please, be my guest! Let anybody stupid enough to be willing to do that, for whatever reasons, do it! The more, the merrier!
In your minds, you're saving the world from those evil evil stonethrower terrorists. In the minds of most of us, normal people, you and the terrorists are all stupid. I'll still call the police if someone tries to rob my house, but I'll avoid dealing with this military beep mindset the most I can.
At least in sports they know it's all about fun and giggles, that it's not actually real. If the best minds we have in the world are athletes and soldiers, no wonder we're on this beep we're in. Back on the day when Da Vinci and Galileo were the models for a great human being, that's when we had some evolution going on for mankind. The world of jocks we live in today is quickly sinking down to hell. We have no real purpose as human beings, so we resort to playing war games like if they meant something. They don't. They're good for movies, computer games, and the rare occasion when all hell breaks loose, and society must have some kind of order. All the rest of the time though, you're just wasting our money with your silly toys. And all the money in the world can make you win a single war, not even against cavemen or desert people with 40-years-old AK47s, and I wonder why that is. It's simple - the worst thing that can happen for military people, is for a war to end. Losing or winning, it doesn't matter. As long as there's a war going on, you'll get your fat paychecks anyways. Well, maybe not you, servicemen and women, but definitely the guys making your expensive toys.
Semper fi! Hoo-ya! Aye-aye! Pretty fun! You guys even have your own language, like Avatar or the elves of Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter. And you're just as believable or relevant as those fairytales. History will be the judge of all your "bravery" and moral superiority.
Let's all agree to keep signatures apart from text body?
-
xcom-22-211813 — 9 years ago(August 10, 2016 11:20 PM)
Wow what a rant.
It's really simple mate, nations will attempt to maintain their national security and ensure their overseas interests are secure. Be it by political means or war.
Unless we're talking about terrorists that slaughter people, your typical infantryman is a patriotic and passionate person that for their own reasons has placed themselves in a position where they may be involved in direct combat with men just like them under a different flag.
So choose a side. If you want to ignore the world then be prepared that other nations won't do the same and you will rely on the service of others to maintain the security and freedoms you live under.
It's unfortunate but it is reality.
Regarding women in combat units, it's another simple situation.
Female infantry burn out faster than Male infantry. That's it. Nothing to do with their ability to kill, nothing to do with a male dominate culture, nothing to do with their morale or mental health.
The female body cannot withstand the punishment that an infantryman/woman would be required to endure during sustained combat operations for weeks to months at a time.
Now can you answer why on either a strategic level or tactical level why any current military force would want female soldiers when males are available to do the job for longer? You can't. Politically there is a reason, militarily, no.