if women are so weak that none of them could possibly get into a program like the seals, then what's the problem with making it co-ed? surely it wouldn't make a difference.

This message has been deleted.

Well put David. If women could compete with men physically they would be on men's teams in pro sports - they would be BILLION DOLLAR BABIES - just think of the revenues they would generate!!!

"what is it about boys and tampons. if a woman is strong and puts their body under lots of strain, their periods stop anyway. also, have you never heard of the depo contraceptive injection? they stop your periods for like a year so its no problem, besides, tampons are pretty tiny/light and the guys carry lots of gear anyways so i doubt they would greatly increase the weightload."
As I believe I said, individually they're not big problems - but they do add up. And an OB/GYN attached to every infantry/armour/engineer/arty battalion is not very tiny/light, nor is his/her salary small - quite the opposite.
"also, there are relationship issues in units without women already."
And what, they're going to improve with full integration?
"you guys just are pretty ignorant. there are plenty of women with "big frames" out there who i believe could just as easily do the job as men. jeeeeeeeeez "
Show me them, and I'll show you Olympic athletes who'd earn 100x times in women's sports.
Your use of the word 'easily' is quite funny considering the extreme physical demands of even yer average infantry unit. Week-long patrols and fighting with 100 lbs+ of kit in 90F+ day and freezing night. This is not some game in which attractive blond-haired blue-eyed hunks dash around looking heroic with cool guns and smooth accents. Sorry, I think it's you that's pretty ignorant.

"Plus, you get headaches about logistics - gotta pack tampons and OB-GYNs with the 5.56 now - and you get headaches about intra-unit relationships, friction, etc."
what is it about boys and tampons. if a woman is strong and puts their body under lots of strain, their periods stop anyway. also, have you never heard of the depo contraceptive injection? they stop your periods for like a year so its no problem, besides, tampons are pretty tiny/light and the guys carry lots of gear anyways so i doubt they would greatly increase the weightload.
also, there are relationship issues in units without women already. you guys just are pretty ignorant. there are plenty of women with "big frames" out there who i believe could just as easily do the job as men. jeeeeeeeeez
DREW SURMAN
UP THE SAINTS
www.saintsfc.co.uk

This message has been deleted.

I apologize, I meant good director, not "goo director." It was late, however, and JESUS CAMP took a lot out of me.

This message has been deleted.

So it seems that this film would be more realistic if a less elite branch of the military was used. That, however, is not the way of Hollywood. Everything must be amped up 10 fold in order for catharsis to ensue and money to be made. This film may be a "crock" but that is just the way the studios want it. Emotion is more important than accuracy. Controversy translates to asses in the seats. Obviously all of you saw the movie, which is all the studio heads care about. All of you are debating the topic, which is probably what Ridley Scott wanted. In any event, it is obvious that men are physically stronger than females. This is unnecessary to point out, and if a former Navy Seal says that he thinks women couldn't be part of this elite force, than I am inclined to believe him. But, why the women bashing?
" Women shouldn't be in the SF unless they are doing a mission to infiltrate my kitchen and/or bedroom."
It is completely unnecessary and offensive. Clearly women aren't as physically strong as men, but don't make such an beep statement because they are unable to to change the way they are born.
This film, while maybe a bit inaccurate, is great and raised questions and makes a person think, which is all any goo director or actor can hope for.

No cogent rebuttal attempts yet

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

Just so that I understand, is this the premise upon which you base your accusation? While your obvious (and vast) life experience is impressive, it would seem at leat arguably a good idea to keep in mind this is entertainment (albeit with a positive feminist twist). If we tear apart each movie on the basis you do, there would be no lawyer movies, doctor movies, or media that features a single mother as a main character. The only crock is your analysis.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

I know this is old, but I wanted to say thanks for having the guts to wade in. So many people run their head when everyone is offering pure opinion, but when an intelligent, informed, confident person states fact that shuts down all the nonsense (as the OP observed) it gets real quiet. So, kudos to wading in and doing it without getting
too
snarky.
On to your comments the "big deal" with a woman being in SF was addressed articulately in the OP. Perfectly. One only needs to reread his post to find out precisely why it's a big deal. Secondly, you're wrong, there simply is no chance, none, that a woman could get through the SF training regimen. It makes neat movie fodder, and we all munch the popcorn and yell "hoo-yah" when Demi growls and does one more push-up with her cut-off, wife-beater t-shirt (frankly, I growl too). In real life, it's just like the movie, a fantasy. Lastly and more importantly though, your comment suffices to explain exactly what the big deal is, if a woman did get through it would be a "miracle" so why institute it? Do we want to have an ob-gyn on staff, sensitivity training, and all the multitude of expensive extras needed for one woman? Why deal with all the problems when it's going to be a few miracle cases (if that)? Makes no sense.
"nothing is left of me, each time I see her" - Catullus

This message has been deleted.

RIGHTO ZZ!

This message has been deleted.

The trouble with saying "women should be given the chance" is that you spend the money taking them on these very expensive courses for the infantry, artillery, armour, combat engineer and special forces roles etc, and what happens? The overwhelmingly vast majority of them fall out, assuming the standards are the same. OK, do those few extra soldiers make it worth it? Perhaps, but they're going to be nothing more than average-to-poor soldiers who would have better careers anyway in women's sports. Plus, you get headaches about logistics - gotta pack tampons and OB-GYNs with the 5.56 now - and you get headaches about intra-unit relationships, friction, etc. The latter point should be non-existent with professionalism but it is still a niggle.
Add all these up and it essentially constitutes a lot of headaches for very little gain.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

Didn't the senator lady do the right thing because she saved those military bases that would otherwise have been closed down?
Same thing we do every night try to take over the world