Explaining women in combat arms

SR_ said:
Heres another interesting article written by a female combat veteran:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/the...le-combat-vet/
Click to expand...

The link didn't work so I'm printing it in full: http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/

Second paragraph: "No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength..."

This is complete and utter bullshit. Show me any peer-reviewed medical opinions that back this up.

She writes: "When I deployed, we’d hardly been in the country a few weeks before one of our females had to be sent home because she’d gotten pregnant (nice waste of training, not to mention taxpayer money that paid for it)."

Parthenogenesis, I suspect. Because surely no male (whose salary and bennies are also paid for by taxpayer money) could have contributed to the pregnancy.

She writes: "I know of one divorced Marine who left her two sons, one of them autistic, with their grandparents while she deployed. She was wounded on base (not on the front lines) and is a purple heart recipient. What if she’d been killed, leaving behind her special needs child? Glory was more important than motherhood."

I just love when women turn on each other </sarcasm>. Why didn't the father take the children?

She writes: "Another case in my own unit was a married female who became angry when they wouldn’t let both her and her husband deploy at the same time. Career advancement was the greater concern."

Ditto about turning on a sister. Why was his career advancement more important than hers?

She writes: "...(not to mention defending our own freedom against these hate-filled terrorists who want to destroy freedom-loving countries like America.)"

More bullshit and a right-wing meme to boot. They don't want to destroy our freedoms, they just want us to get the hell out of their countries and stop meddling in their affairs.

Bottom line, if I were serving with this woman I wouldn't trust her to have my back.
 
christiefan915 said:
The link didn't work so I'm printing it in full: http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/

Second paragraph: "No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength..."

This is complete and utter bullshit. Show me any peer-reviewed medical opinions that back this up.

She writes: "When I deployed, we’d hardly been in the country a few weeks before one of our females had to be sent home because she’d gotten pregnant (nice waste of training, not to mention taxpayer money that paid for it)."

Parthenogenesis, I suspect. Because surely no male (whose salary and bennies are also paid for by taxpayer money) could have contributed to the pregnancy.

She writes: "I know of one divorced Marine who left her two sons, one of them autistic, with their grandparents while she deployed. She was wounded on base (not on the front lines) and is a purple heart recipient. What if she’d been killed, leaving behind her special needs child? Glory was more important than motherhood."

I just love when women turn on each other </sarcasm>. Why didn't the father take the children?

She writes: "Another case in my own unit was a married female who became angry when they wouldn’t let both her and her husband deploy at the same time. Career advancement was the greater concern."

Ditto about turning on a sister. Why was his career advancement more important than hers?

She writes: "...(not to mention defending our own freedom against these hate-filled terrorists who want to destroy freedom-loving countries like America.)"

More bullshit and a right-wing meme to boot. They don't want to destroy our freedoms, they just want us to get the hell out of their countries and stop meddling in their affairs.

Bottom line, if I were serving with this woman I wouldn't trust her to have my back.
Click to expand...

Christiefan,

Im not going to spend the time necessary posting medical links. I think its very disingenuous to suggest that the physiology of a woman's body is the same as a mans, its very disingenuous to suggest that during a woman's period there are no effects on her physical body and performance. I dont know if youre trying to suggest that nothing happens and that men and women are both built the same physically or what because you seem unwilling or unable to simply acknowledge these differences and how those differences effect this debate.

To a certain extent I guess I realize that if you addressed this in an honest manner it might suggest that you are "agreeing" that there is a significant disparity between the physicality's and that might be seen as surrender... I dont know.. but this issue is a major focus and a major cause of concern for many. You seem to dismiss this as crazy and would prefer to bog down in medical journal reports as proof of something we both already know.

Female pregnancy is an issue. This is being painted in more of a negative light than it should be, but almost double the women have been sent home from Afghanistan just from the British military, than the entire number of American women killed in combat. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19657646

This speaks to a few things, but mainly 2 issues stand out. The first is that vast majority of females that are in the military are between the ages of 18 and 29. This is also the normal and expected age for females to bear children. Meaning... for a 24 yr old female to get pregnant is NOT a negative or out of the norm. The vast majority of males that are in the military are also between 18 and 29, and combining young females and males in remote situations and locations is going to lead to sexual relations. This again is NOT out of the ordinary. The best way to keep young men focused in a deployed status is to keep them AWAY from females. The authors reference to the effect on putting females alongside males in the Navy has had what everyone should expect as a result which is young men and women in close quarters and thus more babies. Do males contribute to the pregnancy? Of course... thats sort of a given. The difference is that a female becoming pregnant does not physically limit the male contributor from participating in military duties at 100%. This is obvious.
 
SR_ said:
Christiefan,

Im not going to spend the time necessary posting medical links. I think its very disingenuous to suggest that the physiology of a woman's body is the same as a mans, its very disingenuous to suggest that during a woman's period there are no effects on her physical body and performance. I dont know if youre trying to suggest that nothing happens and that men and women are both built the same physically or what because you seem unwilling or unable to simply acknowledge these differences and how those differences effect this debate.

To a certain extent I guess I realize that if you addressed this in an honest manner it might suggest that you are "agreeing" that there is a significant disparity between the physicality's and that might be seen as surrender... I dont know.. but this issue is a major focus and a major cause of concern for many. You seem to dismiss this as crazy and would prefer to bog down in medical journal reports as proof of something we both already know.

Female pregnancy is an issue. This is being painted in more of a negative light than it should be, but almost double the women have been sent home from Afghanistan just from the British military, than the entire number of American women killed in combat. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19657646

This speaks to a few things, but mainly 2 issues stand out. The first is that vast majority of females that are in the military are between the ages of 18 and 29. This is also the normal and expected age for females to bear children. Meaning... for a 24 yr old female to get pregnant is NOT a negative or out of the norm. The vast majority of males that are in the military are also between 18 and 29, and combining young females and males in remote situations and locations is going to lead to sexual relations. This again is NOT out of the ordinary. The best way to keep young men focused in a deployed status is to keep them AWAY from females. The authors reference to the effect on putting females alongside males in the Navy has had what everyone should expect as a result which is young men and women in close quarters and thus more babies. Do males contribute to the pregnancy? Of course... thats sort of a given. The difference is that a female becoming pregnant does not physically limit the male contributor from participating in military duties at 100%. This is obvious.
Click to expand...

Relax, for once this isn't about you, you're just the proxy for Jude Eden.

You can't post medical links because there aren't any to post; I already checked. The woman is simply wrong about women "losing half their strength before their cycle" and I don't where she even dug up such bogus information, maybe she just made it up. In fact, I don't even know what that means. Is she saying that in Week One women could lift 50# but in Week 3 they could lift only 25#? I can't even see why you would believe such a thing, no matter how invested you are in keeping the status quo. And it's ironic that you think I'm not being honest; I'm a woman and I can see another woman's BS quite clearly.

I understand that women don't have the upper body strength of men. That's been studied and proven.

My issue with the article is that Jude Eden can't make her argument without trashing other women for events that are the responsibilities of both, i.e. getting pregnant, job advancement, deploying and having to leave children with others. And she's scraping the bottom of the barrel when she has to bring up where women pee.
 
christiefan915 said:
Relax, for once this isn't about you, you're just the proxy for Jude Eden.

You can't post medical links because there aren't any to post; I already checked. The woman is simply wrong about women "losing half their strength before their cycle" and I don't where she even dug up such bogus information, maybe she just made it up. In fact, I don't even know what that means. Is she saying that in Week One women could lift 50# but in Week 3 they could lift only 25#? I can't even see why you would believe such a thing, no matter how invested you are in keeping the status quo. And it's ironic that you think I'm not being honest; I'm a woman and I can see another woman's BS quite clearly.

I understand that women don't have the upper body strength of men. That's been studied and proven.

My issue with the article is that Jude Eden can't make her argument without trashing other women for events that are the responsibilities of both, i.e. getting pregnant, job advancement, deploying and having to leave children with others. And she's scraping the bottom of the barrel when she has to bring up where women pee.
Click to expand...

What a crock! Jeebus
 
I will just say this, it just seems to me that the same people that are pushing so hard for this are the exact same ones that would never deploy any soldiers anyway.
 
christiefan915 said:
Relax, for once this isn't about you, you're just the proxy for Jude Eden.

You can't post medical links because there aren't any to post; I already checked. The woman is simply wrong about women "losing half their strength before their cycle" and I don't where she even dug up such bogus information, maybe she just made it up. In fact, I don't even know what that means. Is she saying that in Week One women could lift 50# but in Week 3 they could lift only 25#? I can't even see why you would believe such a thing, no matter how invested you are in keeping the status quo. And it's ironic that you think I'm not being honest; I'm a woman and I can see another woman's BS quite clearly.

I understand that women don't have the upper body strength of men. That's been studied and proven.

My issue with the article is that Jude Eden can't make her argument without trashing other women for events that are the responsibilities of both, i.e. getting pregnant, job advancement, deploying and having to leave children with others. And she's scraping the bottom of the barrel when she has to bring up where women pee.
Click to expand...

Here is an article from her website, can't speak for others but I would agree with much of it.

Mid-20[SUP]th[/SUP] century Feminism has taught us that women don’t need men, that we can do anything men can do from business to close combat, that taking on the worst behavior of promiscuous men is desirable, and that we can avoid the physical and emotional consequences that result. Chivalry is long since dead: Feminism declared it the relic of an oppressive patriarchal society rather than what it was: a standard that held women up in order to protect them. And they have convinced themselves that any differences between the sexes exist because they have been artificially imposed by men. Meanwhile men have been emasculated and fathers relegated to mere sperm donors.

Has anyone noticed all the heroines in our films and television shows in recent years? No longer are chivalrous men protecting vulnerable women. From Alias to La Femme Nikita to any female-centric film you can name, the women are portrayed as fighting machines (with guns), often rescuing their male counterparts. You know these films. Michelle Rodriguez plays the same exact cardboard badass in so many of them. They take down fighting man after fighting man. But this is all fiction – take it from a female black belt and Iraq War veteran. And don’t get me started on that twig LeeLee Sobieski on NYC22 playing a veteran who can take down street thugs. The reality is that even Rhonda Rousey isn’t put in the ring with male fighters.
If women could do the same things men can, there wouldn’t be separate standards for them in police work, firefighting, and the military, or as is true in some cases, lower standards for both sexes that women can pass. Most women can’t wield the fire hose, carry a 200-lb man off the battlefield, or take down a male criminal. The last example was proved just recently when a female cop was overpowered by a criminal who had been taken into custody. He stole her gun and three cops were shot.

Yes, some women are stronger than some men, but they are never stronger than strong men, and a woman without a weapon is no match for a man who wants to do her harm, even if she knows how to fight. I earned that black belt, I became a Marine, I went to the combat zone. But I also got cancer, and what happens when you can no longer physically fight? What if you don’t want to fight? How many women or moms, married or not, have time to train to become proficient fighters to be ready for that one random time the criminal comes at them in the parking lot? You need to be able to own a weapon for self-defense if you choose. You need to be able to nullify the threat before it comes down to hand-to-hand combat.

No matter how much the Feminists rail, and no matter how many times Hollywood portrays heroic fighting women, women are the weaker sex. This doesn’t mean lesser, it just means physically weaker and that’s a fact no amount of affirmative action or double standards can change. Leave it to hypocritical liberals and feminists to ignore scientific reality in favor of the brave new world they want to force into existence. You would think that girl-power philosophy would extend to empowering women to protect ourselves with any weapon available, especially after teaching us for so long that we don’t need men. But no, the hypocrisy is ubiquitous. Women don’t need men and they don’t need weapons either. Feminism thus fails women.

Existing and new gun control laws coupled with Feminist ideals just means that we all have to become fighters, whether we want to or not. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle until a strong man decides to take advantage of her and/or her children. For 50 years now we’ve been taught that government will fill that void, but of course, the police usually come only come after a crime has been committed. And now the cop might be some chick who made it on a double standard who gets overpowered by the criminal in your home. Without a strong man to provide for and protect her, she not only must be a bread-winner, she must be a black belt – unless she can arm herself for protection. Guns are the real equalizer between the sexes.

http://politicalanimalblog.com/2013/01/14/between-feminism-and-gun-control-women-are-screwed/
 
christiefan915 said:
Relax, for once this isn't about you, you're just the proxy for Jude Eden.

You can't post medical links because there aren't any to post; I already checked. The woman is simply wrong about women "losing half their strength before their cycle" and I don't where she even dug up such bogus information, maybe she just made it up. In fact, I don't even know what that means. Is she saying that in Week One women could lift 50# but in Week 3 they could lift only 25#? I can't even see why you would believe such a thing, no matter how invested you are in keeping the status quo. And it's ironic that you think I'm not being honest; I'm a woman and I can see another woman's BS quite clearly.

I understand that women don't have the upper body strength of men. That's been studied and proven.

My issue with the article is that Jude Eden can't make her argument without trashing other women for events that are the responsibilities of both, i.e. getting pregnant, job advancement, deploying and having to leave children with others. And she's scraping the bottom of the barrel when she has to bring up where women pee.
Click to expand...

I cant speak to her motivation, and I dont really think that the literal things she says or how well she worded it is the issue.

I think she brings up some specific issues:
Physical issues
Cohesiveness issues
Practical Logistical issues
Societal issues

Your assessment of "how" she makes her argument is missing the substantive portion.

I think if you actually took any of these issues and applied actual analysis you'd see where the substance lies.

In your mind in the vacuum of hypothetical:
Is a pregnancy the responsibility of both the man and the woman? Yes.
Is equality in "job" advancement important to you? Yes

If you were to analyze this from a military asset point of view:
Does a woman getting pregnant cause the male to not be physically able to perform combat duties? No
Is a physical activity being tied to job advancement "equal" for men and women whos purpose is to wage war? No

Its like you understand that a man has just has much responsibility in making a baby, but its almost like you forget that you cant have a pregnant woman in a combat zone. I mean, clearly this is something obvious and entirely logical. I know that you understand that just because a female gets pregnant that it doesnt keep her male partner from continuing in the fight as she is HAVING to be sent back home. Again, this is obvious. Theres nothing to debate here. I would assume as a citizen who pays taxes that fund these endeavors that having a female transported to a foreign battlefield only to have to send her back home because she got pregnant is NOT helping to enhance combat effectiveness for the military YOU are paying for. I mean is there any debatable point there? You think its better to pay an individual that you know cannot physically perform a very physical job just in the name of "career advancement"? As a tax payer you think this is an efficient expenditure of your tax dollars? Is this point have any debate associated with it? And after all of this waste and distraction theres still an element of these individuals losing their lives due the very inequality and distractions associated, and this is acceptable to you in the name of career advancement? Really?

These questions are directly tied to the actual issues at hand, not in some prepared stage of some unknown job that has to be performed, and yet you still refer to it as it is. Why?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Here is an article from her website, can't speak for others but I would agree with much of it.

Mid-20[SUP]th[/SUP] century Feminism has taught us that women don’t need men, that we can do anything men can do from business to close combat, that taking on the worst behavior of promiscuous men is desirable, and that we can avoid the physical and emotional consequences that result. Chivalry is long since dead: Feminism declared it the relic of an oppressive patriarchal society rather than what it was: a standard that held women up in order to protect them. And they have convinced themselves that any differences between the sexes exist because they have been artificially imposed by men. Meanwhile men have been emasculated and fathers relegated to mere sperm donors.

Has anyone noticed all the heroines in our films and television shows in recent years? No longer are chivalrous men protecting vulnerable women. From Alias to La Femme Nikita to any female-centric film you can name, the women are portrayed as fighting machines (with guns), often rescuing their male counterparts. You know these films. Michelle Rodriguez plays the same exact cardboard badass in so many of them. They take down fighting man after fighting man. But this is all fiction – take it from a female black belt and Iraq War veteran. And don’t get me started on that twig LeeLee Sobieski on NYC22 playing a veteran who can take down street thugs. The reality is that even Rhonda Rousey isn’t put in the ring with male fighters.
If women could do the same things men can, there wouldn’t be separate standards for them in police work, firefighting, and the military, or as is true in some cases, lower standards for both sexes that women can pass. Most women can’t wield the fire hose, carry a 200-lb man off the battlefield, or take down a male criminal. The last example was proved just recently when a female cop was overpowered by a criminal who had been taken into custody. He stole her gun and three cops were shot.

Yes, some women are stronger than some men, but they are never stronger than strong men, and a woman without a weapon is no match for a man who wants to do her harm, even if she knows how to fight. I earned that black belt, I became a Marine, I went to the combat zone. But I also got cancer, and what happens when you can no longer physically fight? What if you don’t want to fight? How many women or moms, married or not, have time to train to become proficient fighters to be ready for that one random time the criminal comes at them in the parking lot? You need to be able to own a weapon for self-defense if you choose. You need to be able to nullify the threat before it comes down to hand-to-hand combat.

No matter how much the Feminists rail, and no matter how many times Hollywood portrays heroic fighting women, women are the weaker sex. This doesn’t mean lesser, it just means physically weaker and that’s a fact no amount of affirmative action or double standards can change. Leave it to hypocritical liberals and feminists to ignore scientific reality in favor of the brave new world they want to force into existence. You would think that girl-power philosophy would extend to empowering women to protect ourselves with any weapon available, especially after teaching us for so long that we don’t need men. But no, the hypocrisy is ubiquitous. Women don’t need men and they don’t need weapons either. Feminism thus fails women.

Existing and new gun control laws coupled with Feminist ideals just means that we all have to become fighters, whether we want to or not. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle until a strong man decides to take advantage of her and/or her children. For 50 years now we’ve been taught that government will fill that void, but of course, the police usually come only come after a crime has been committed. And now the cop might be some chick who made it on a double standard who gets overpowered by the criminal in your home. Without a strong man to provide for and protect her, she not only must be a bread-winner, she must be a black belt – unless she can arm herself for protection. Guns are the real equalizer between the sexes.

http://politicalanimalblog.com/2013/01/14/between-feminism-and-gun-control-women-are-screwed/
Click to expand...

Look at her professional profile on LinkedIn. The woman couldn't have gotten as far as she did if it weren't for the feminists who fought to get those opportunities for women. She lives feminism; yet she has a double standard for bashing liberals and other feminists who helped her by paving the way over the past few decades.

I see this in a lot of conservative women and they either don't have any self-awareness or they're masters at self-deception. The fourth paragraph in her article above makes me want to throw up. "Feminism fails women." This spiteful biotch needs to quit her job and get back into the kitchen; there are plenty of talented women standing in line to take her place in the professional world.
 
christiefan915 said:
Look at her professional profile on LinkedIn. The woman couldn't have gotten as far as she did if it weren't for the feminists who fought to get those opportunities for women. She lives feminism; yet she has a double standard for bashing liberals and other feminists who helped her by paving the way over the past few decades.

I see this in a lot of conservative women and they either don't have any self-awareness or they're masters at self-deception. The fourth paragraph in her article above makes me want to throw up. "Feminism fails women." This spiteful biotch needs to quit her job and get back into the kitchen; there are plenty of talented women standing in line to take her place in the professional world.
Click to expand...

Here! Here! Stupid man appeasing women!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top