Rick Santorum: Women aren't able to handle the rigors of combat...Thoughts?

[nooera]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

I don't see any physical limitations when it comes to women being able to use a gun and certain weapons, just as long as the gun/weapon is the perfect weight/size for them? One of my friends this tiny vietnamese girl was going to work on dudes in paintball---women can be VERY effective in combat if they are trained to maximize their strengths

They are nimble, quick, stealth and can fit in tight spaces--women are the perfect assassins

You don't seem to have a good understanding of combat.  Marines & Soldiers carry over 100 lbs for miles at a time through steep terrain in all weather conditions.  Using a weapon in combat isn't just pulling a trigger and controlling the recoil... there's a lot that goes on before a single shot is fired.  Women haven't proven capable to withstand the same basic training and pt standards as men in the military... it goes without saying that it is counter productive to put them into direct combat roles.  Some people argue that women in the military are already seeing combat.  That's only because they may be part of a convoy that is attacked, but they really aren't allowed into direct combat roles.  The gear a soldier wears is 70 lbs at minimum, good luck finding a lot of women that can handle that weight plus the weight of a 200+ lb fallen comrade and drag/carry him to safety.  The military doesn't look to recruit weak or average men for the battlefield... why should they look to recruit women?

Anton isn't trying to hear this though. He has no clue what he's talking about

On top of that he resorted to taking a personal shot at me calling me a coward when he doesnt even know me and has no idea of what my past has consisted of

Dude is using a girl who was good at paintball as proof that women can hang

He claims that the US military consists of nothing more than air raids . No boots on the ground whatsoever. No need to have our soldiers in tip-top shape and as strong as possible because all we do is drop bombs. It's laughable.

Then again dude is the main contributor to NT religion threads so it's hard to take his opinion on anything not related to medical care seriously.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

 

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Scientific Method

Many of these dudes arent carrying 200 lbs either. When I get home, I'll look up some fb pics of both men and women i work with

I'm saying, many of the people I know in the military aren't the biggest people out there---People are in here acting like everyone in the military looks like this

Everybody in the military is not in a direct combat role.� When you look at pictures of Marines, Rangers, Navy SEALs, Delta, etc.� I don't care what you think they look like physically... they are mentally & physically tougher than anyone you'll ever meet.� You would really benefit from going to youtube and watching some videos on youtube of military men training for direct combat jobs



^^--- watch that video and then tell me you think females would last just one day doing that!  There's only a small percentage of men that can make it through that and that's a relatively easy day during PJ training.

 

[nooera]

Being a good shot =/= being a good soldier.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by NooEra

Being a good shot =/= being a good soldier.

Carrying 400 lbs doesn't make you a good soldier either, what's your point? Is it because women are actually capable of using weapons and technology to their benefit without relying on brute strength?

That's what I thought

 

[nooera]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by NooEra

Being a good shot =/= being a good soldier.

Carrying 400 lbs doesn't make you a good soldier either, what's your point? Is it because women are actually capable of using weapons and technology to their benefit without relying on brute strength?

That's what I thought

But do you know what does make you a good soldier? Being able to lift 400 lbs AND be a good shot. How do you not understand this?

Edit: And as far as I can see, no women exist who match this criteria. It's truly a simple idea.

Women can indeed making positive contributions to the military, obviously. But were talking about COMBAT.

 

[wr]

Just because male and female compliment each other doesn't mean we are exact equals. We are suited for different things based on our biology. A man can take a woopin on the battlefield, but his loins cant take the woopin of holding another person inside of him for 9 months.

 

[ar guy]

Anton you're in over your head on this issue. Watch Restrepo and tell me if you think that women can handle combat.

 

[kickstart]

I see a lot of you don't believe in equality.

Good look on that documentary--will be checking it out.

 

[ar guy]

Originally Posted by kickstart

I see a lot of you don't believe in equality.

Good look on that documentary--will be checking it out.

Neither does combat.

 

[danikerhino]

Let's not fool ourselves, there are women who can hang with men both physically and mentally but, is our training efficient enough to weed out the weak ones as it does for the men. I'm not saying all men that pass basic training are 100% ready for combat but, in the same circumstances, would there be more women that mentally or physically breakdown compared to the numbers of men who brokedown?

 

[monstar1]

I swear dudes look to argue about stuff they don't know anything about.  You will never see a NTer go "oh for real? I didn't know that.  I guess I was wrong"

Naww they just argue to the bitter end

paintball?

 like how do you say that with a straight face? 

 

[|A-Man|]

Dude was surprised he won that state and now he wants to indirectly end his campaign

Of all things to speak on this as if he's an expert. 

@ the men being concerned about the women. How doesn't he see how he's still insulting women?

I'm beginning to connect the dots though, I'm guessing those guys don't want gay men in the military because they're scared they're gonna rape the hell out of these other guys since these troops are raping all the female troops.

@ "raped too much" as if there's a "raped just enough"

 

[moonmaster3]

I'm thinking of situations where brute strength HAS to come into play. Ideally, you won't ever have to get close to the enemy to kill them...but what if you do? I'm sure there are some girls who can take care of business but the vast majority...? It's not be sexist, it's being realistic. Physically speaking...girls are weaker than us on average.

What if %#+# really hits the fan and a female soldier's buddies start getting hit? Do you really think she can go around picking them up and carrying them to safety?

Obviously you're going to have outlier females who have real good strength...but how many of them are out there and how many of them actually join the military?

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by AR Guy

Originally Posted by kickstart

I see a lot of you don't believe in equality.

Good look on that documentary--will be checking it out.

Neither does combat.

�� Damn funny how women Muslim women have "equal" rights when it comes to fighting for their cause

Hell even children can become effective soldiers and they are physically weak

 

[weekz]

It defeats the purpose to ask more men this question. Ask the women themselves. Let's be real, there are probably less than 10 regular female posters in the general forum.

 

[voodoo]

In the early 1990s,the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forcesdecided, based on the evidence the commission gathered, women don't belong incombat. This commission was comprised of men and women, professionals, who cameto this conclusion based on professional knowledge and expertise in theirindividual fields. I agree with them for numerous reasons. This will be long,and maybe a bit disorganized, but here are the reasons on which I agree.

As a practicalmatter, 99 percent of women are unsuited for combat, and that includes flyingcombat aircraft and serving on combatant ships. That women do these thingsdoesn't mean they should, it just means the military has been feminized andcivilianized, this is how the majority of military men feel about it when theyare able to speak candidly about it. However, in our ever growing PC world,speaking candidly and having an opinion which will offend any portion of ourpopulation, must be kept to themselves while in a work environment. Theiradvancement in their job depends on their playing the PC role, especiallyofficers. In presentations to the commission however, military officers,including those who have women serving with them in aviation, were clear on onething, women did not belong in combat roles.

 The evidence showedwomen lack the necessary physical prowess. The strongest woman recruit,generally, is only as strong as the weakest man. Given that the services try toweed out the weakest men, it's counterproductive to recruit even the strongestwomen. And our volunteer military, remember, doesn't get the strongest women,it gets average women. (I'll come back to this, but I am leading into moreabout aviation, since that keeps getting brought up as a defense for women'ssuccess in combat roles)

 Women also sufferhigher rates of bone fractures, (documented by military medicine) and otherfactors such as menstruation (have you ever thought of the nightmare of dealingwith feminine protection....out in the field?)pregnancy and aging mitigateagainst recruiting women as combat soldiers. The 20-something woman, forinstance, has about the same lungpower as the 50-something man. But, we aretalking about ground combat here, which I'll get back to.

 So, that might betrue for ground combat, many insist, but surely they can fly jets and bombers.Again, untrue. Flying high-performance jets requires incredible conditioningand strength, particularly in the neck. Top Gun fighter pilots told thecommission (and news reports later confirmed) that unqualified lady pilotsroutinely passed Naval flight training. At that time at least, officers wererated on the number of women they promoted. The result in one case? KaraHultgreen, the first woman to "qualify" flying an F-14, was killedwhen her jet crashed because she couldn't land it on the carrier AbrahamLincoln. The findings after the accident confirmed, she hit a snag which herlack of physical strength could not overcome. A man would have landed theaircraft successfully. But let's suppose women fly jets as well as men. Whathappens when one is shot down? The safety of the high-tech cockpit is gone, andshe is alone on the ground, trying to survive. Would her male counterpart havea better chance at survival? An 80% better chance studies showed. Howsuccessful have women been as combat aircraft pilots? As successful as thosepromoting the agenda of their being there want you to think they are. So, backto the F-14 pilot, can we justify the loss of a 38 million dollar aircraftbecause a woman wanted the chance to fly it? Remember, her lack of physicalstrength as a woman downed it. Oh, and cost her life. But, she got to be awoman F-14 pilot!

 Now, let's talk aboutthe ship, if women aren't suited for ground combat, they certainly can serve oncombat ships. Sure, they can. If you take away close quarters, months at sea,oh, and 1500 horny sailors. No matter what the Navy says about its"leadership" correcting carnal temptations, it has been a continuingissue shipboard. Not to mention sexual favors being exchanged for work. On topof that, the Navy has dealt with numerous sexual harassment cases. Sailors arebeing sailors, and the women shipboard are complaining. Or sailors are crossinglines, and the women are paying the price. Whatever-the-case, this has cost theNavy time and money to address. Which if women weren't on the ships in thefirst place, would be a non-issue. The strength deficit surfaces again in manyshipboard tasks too numerous to mention here. But, if women cannot physicallydo the job shipboard, do they even belong there? (completely aside from the sexissue) The report of the early 90s addressed these issues as they had alreadybeen a problem on non-combat ships, where women had been serving.

 On to training, whichis another area where the women fall flat. They cannot survive the same basictraining as men, so it is "gender-normed." That means the services(and military academies) have different standards for women than for men, andnot just for hair length. If women were held to the same standards as men, thenmore than 14 percent of our armed forces would not be women. And, they couldnot attend the academies. Oddly enough, the feminists say that scrapping thedouble standard would be discriminatory! So much for judging someone on hertrue merit.

 In the decade sincethe commission heard tons of testimony on these points, nothing has changedunless women have evolved markedly improved muscle and bone.

 In reply to theseunassailable facts, some suggest some women can meet the same standards withthe proper weight training and physical-fitness regimen. That's a stretch, butlet's say a few can. That takes us back to the weakest man vs. the strongestwoman. What standard would these few meet? The lowest among the men? Even ifthey fell among men of medium strength, consider the prohibitive cost ofselecting these Amazonian anomalies from among general population. And findingthem assumes they want to be found.

 One unfortunate pointis, women get by in the military only because of men. As one internet bloggerobserved, the equipment one man carries into combat is nearly as heavy, perhapsheavier, than Jessica Lynch. Lynch and women her size do not have the strengthto carry a fallen 200-pound comrade out of harm's way. Forgetting about combat,some women aircraft mechanics need men to lift their toolboxes. Without men,the armed forces would collapse, and the more women the military enlists, theweaker it becomes.

 As one commissionerremarked in exasperation: "Women are not little men, and men are not bigwomen."

 That leaves the moraland social questions, which commission member and Vietnam War hero Ron Rayaddressed with this remark: "The question isn't whether women can do, it'swhether they should do it."

 Women should only beused in combat, Ray argued, if national survival demands it; i.e., when theIndians are circling the ranch and the men are dead and wounded. Even then,using women would be a last resort. It would not become a policy. Such an emergencyisn't likely to happen here. Should it happen here, oh yeah, we know all thewomen will be fighting.

 The moral and socialargument is one of "rights" vs. what is right. The feminists claimcombat service is a "right." A battlefield is not a boardroom, acourtroom or an operating room, and the contrary notion is hyper egalitarianismrooted in feminist fantasies that women "will have made it" when theyhave commanded troops in battle. Women do not have a "right" toserve. Military service for volunteers is a privilege, for draftees, it is aduty. No one has a "right" to serve, a civilian idea equivalent tohaving the "right" to be a doctor or lawyer that has no place in themilitary, whose principal purpose is to kill the enemy and destroy his capacityto fight. Sociologically, physically, and mentally, men are the ones designedto accomplish this purpose. Why? Well here we go.....

 Because turning awoman into the kind of person who views such gore without blinking an eye, orwho participates in the wanton killing war requires, is a step down to paganbarbarism and cultural suicide. In some sense, given what we've seen in theGulf, we've already taken that step. But some won't quit until they get womeninto ground combat units. As recent events prove, no one seems to care what allthis means not only culturally but also psychologically.

 It will requiretraining men and women to regard the brutalization of women, and a woman'sbrutalization of others, as normal and acceptable. To train the men properly, awoman commissioner observed, we must erase everything their mothers taught themabout chivalry; i.e., that a real man protects a woman from harm. Instead, theymust be trained to brain a woman with a stick in training. This truthraises two paradoxes.

 On one hand, tocompletely desensitize the men, such training would be required. But thefeminists don't want that because women can't meet the same standards as men;they won't survive it. Yet how are these women to survive combat if they cannotsurvive real, not gender-normed, basic training? The men would have to protectthem. Successfully integrating women in combat means this, a soldier mustforget that a woman is a woman. Impossible. And if it is possible, how thendoes a man separate their ideas of women not really being treated as women onthe battlefield, but as women in civilian life. Doesn't war take a large enoughmental toll without adding an additional burden of figuring out how to handlethat?

 On the other hand,while folks never stop the finger-wagging about "domestic abuse,"they importune us to inure men to the wartime abuse of women. Again, to somedegree, we're already there. The capture and torture of Jessica Lynch andShoshana Johnson, the single mother, was just another day in the war. But thenagain, the society that sent these young women to war is the same one that has steroidally-fortified men and women bashing each other senseless in television's fauxwrestling, which presents the illusion that women really can fight against men,as well as preposterous movies about women Navy SEALS, or women who receive theMedal of Honor while the men cower in fear. It's a joke, and the joke is mainlyon the American public....and is a slap in the face to everything that we areas a country, hell, even as human beings.

 Lastly, assigningwomen to combat, or even combat support units like the 507th, purposelysubjects them to trials and tribulations for which nature has not preparedthem. Such assignments endanger not only the women but also the men aroundthem, who will redirect their attention from fighting toward protecting orhelping the women. Men will do that because they are men, because regardless offeminist propaganda, good parents teach their sons about chivalry and honor.Women who "demand equality" don't like it, but it's true nonetheless.Thus, men will die unnecessarily. That is as immoral and unjust, as is orderingmarried men and women to live in close quarters where they are tempted toadultery. The entire idea is ludicrous and a negative idea for the directionour country.

 

[yngsimba.sneakershoebox]

 

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by yngSIMBA

Originally Posted by voodoo

Everybody in the military is not in a direct combat role. When you look at pictures of Marines, Rangers, Navy SEALs, Delta, etc. I don't care what you think they look like physically... they are mentally & physically tougher than anyone you'll ever meet. You would really benefit from going to youtube and watching some videos on youtube of military men training for direct combat jobs



^^--- watch that video and then tell me you think females would last just one day doing that! There's only a small percentage of men that can make it through that and that's a relatively easy day during PJ training.

So since women MAY not make it through this ONE program, they can't fight otherwise?

So she gets cut from Pararescue training, therefore she can't have an infantry job?

They're not even making it through the same basic training. Before we even talk about training programs for direct combat roles, you have to realize they are not even meeting the same standards just to be in the military. So if the goal is to put women into combat jobs, the first step would be getting rid of the easier set of female standards so everyone wearing the uniform meets the same standard.

It's one thing to have a lower set of standards so women can join the military in support roles (finance, personnel, medical, etc). But it's a completely different case when you're talking about putting them on the front lines where lives are at risk. For anyone that doesn't think that's "fair", think about trying to explain to a mother that her son bleed to death in the dirt because his female battle buddy couldn't move him to safety.

 

[yngsimba.sneakershoebox]

X

 

[tupac jordan]

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/tayvie.html For as long as the Vietnamese people fought against foreign enemies, women were a vital part of that struggle. The victory over the French at Dien Bien Phu is said to have involved hundreds of thousands of women, and many of the names in Viet Cong unit rosters were female. These women were living out the ancient saying of their country, "When war comes, even women have to fight."

 

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by yngSIMBA

^^So lets change the standards for woman joining the military, say they have to pass the same test as men.. do you think it would be ok for them to join if they can meet the new requirements?

I wish it was that simple.  Without the current female standards, there wouldn't be a significant number of women in the military at all.  The lower standards are needed if we're going to have gender diversity in the armed forces. 

 

[ar guy]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by AR Guy

Originally Posted by kickstart

I see a lot of you don't believe in equality.

Good look on that documentary--will be checking it out.

Neither does combat.

�� Damn funny how women Muslim women have "equal" rights when it comes to fighting for their cause

Hell even children can become effective soldiers and they are physically weak

They're effective only in the sense it's bad publicity to shoot kids. And newsflash women can and do serve in our armed forces. You're acting like we ban women entirely from military duty. Besides why is it I never here of women in the military demanding that they be allowed into combat units but only women or people who have never served?

 

[HEATHEN]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

I don't see any physical limitations when it comes to women being able to use a gun and certain weapons, just as long as the gun/weapon is the perfect weight/size for them? One of my friends this tiny vietnamese girl was going to work on dudes in paintball---women can be VERY effective in combat if they are trained to maximize their strengths

They are nimble, quick, stealth and can fit in tight spaces--women are the perfect assassins

but you're not just carrying armament. 
you're carrying your rucksack, 5 lbs of batteries, water, ammo. You have body armor, first-aid, gps and a ton of other stuff.

The average soldier is carrying nearly 100 lbs of gear. Secondly women have special needs that men simply don't have. 

I usually agree with you Anton but as far as women in infantry/combat roles, I just don't see it. 

 

[HEATHEN]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by AR Guy

Originally Posted by kickstart

I see a lot of you don't believe in equality.

Good look on that documentary--will be checking it out.

Neither does combat.

�� Damn funny how women Muslim women have "equal" rights when it comes to fighting for their cause

Hell even children can become effective soldiers and they are physically weak

effective?
that's laughable.

look at their casualty rates.

pawns and martyrs are more like it.