well then perhaps you are can tell me how a well trained 130 pound woman is going to stack up against a well trained 185 pound male in life or death hand to hand combat? how does that usually work out for you?
How much fighting is hand-to hand? You seem to be fighting wars that took place 200 years ago.
But even still, how is a 130 pound man going to stack up against a 185 pound man? You seem to be familiar with pro boxing. Why do you think they have weight classes?
now you’re saying that since it is 2014, combat will be with guns only. what an absurd assertion.
You seem to have changed your tune from how you started this thread.
For me? I am a trained 160 pound, 5’9 woman, to be really honest. I generally can hold my own, and if it was to the death, I may surprise you.
As I said earlier - not every person man or woman, is suited to the military. Which is why there is a selection process, and depending on the job, it can be pretty tough. Maybe there are fewer women capable of it, but it doesn’t mean you count them all out.
Last I checked, a penis was not necessary equipment to succeed in combat.
All that opening up the application process does, is allows women to try to qualify. If they don’t meet the standard, they wash out of the training. Same as a man.
he’s not going to stack up well but he has a better chance than a 130 pound woman.
So, because he has a “better chance” than a woman of similar weight that’s OK? What about a 185 pound, fully trained woman versus a 130 pound man?
You’re just making shit up as you go along to justify your preconceived idea. There is no point in debating with you.
well that is pretty impressive. do you think, however, that a 130 pound woman could hold her own against you or men of your size? 130 pounds is about average wight for an athletic woman, correct?
ok
but
i can admit i am being biased and stubborn and coming across with an agenda that is stated more forcefully than I intend. can you admit that even though feminists say they are fighting for equality for qualified women that it comes across as all women are equally qualified??? what people intend to say in a debate and what they actually say in a debate are often different.
yeah, right, because i never once thought about size difference and physicality before i started dialouging with you about it
It would be absurd if I asserted that. Happily, it’s only your inability to read what I wrote with comprehension that’s at fault.
Well, even though I am (obviously) a supporter of women in uniform (being one) I certainly won’t attempt to explain what all feminists are saying - that would be ludicrously unfair on my part. What I will say is that not all women, or men, are suited to being in uniform, and anyone that says differently does not know what they are talking about.
Those that desire a life in the military should be given the chance to try, regardless of gender.
So if what you are looking for is agreement that not everyone should be in the military, I absolutely concur. The same way that not everyone is suited to any one profession. Thankfully, there are many choices.
If what you want is for me to agree that sometimes people don’t actually say what they mean and they can be misunderstood - then I agree with you. People often don’t communicate well, especially when passion and anger come into play.
you know, i’ve changed my position. my position was that women are not suited to combat. my position is now that most of the time they are not but there are exceptions where they are.
your claim seems to be that because we have guns now the size or physicality of a woman in combat is not an issue. but yet you admit that it is not restricted to gunfights.
ok, and what about the tendency of men, most men, to be overprotective of women and to not to want to take orders from them. i’m not saying a military unit or any other group should not be integrated and keep out qualified people. i’m curious as to how it works out because it breaks some pretty strong social taboo’s to put women in combat.
You know, there are a great many men out there who are not suited to combat at all. Faced with much puzzlement over this, over the years the various branches of the armed forces have devised a large number of aptitude tests and training regimens to weed out the macho men who get to be Marines from the wheezy failures who don’t, and thus get to suffer a meaningless existence of hot meals, hygiene, sleeping in beds and not getting blown up.
If only there was a way these same tests could be applied to wom… Waaaait a minute !
In all honesty, I haven’t run into it much, at least the men I work with are no more protective than they would be of any other fellow soldier or officer. My guys look out for me, I look out for them.
Seems to me the problem would be on their end.
ETA : I mean, I’ve been in places where I did not want to take orders from other men, but every time they told me to get over it or accused me of not being a team player. Never once did they suggest removing the boss. Go figure.
Yeah, women lack the innate levels of aggression needed to be involved in infantry combat. Having a vagina makes them too loving and coddling, no woman could pull the trigger on 309 men.
I know this is really the topic of another debate but with the flaccidity of the OP I hope the segue is understandable; I really doubt we’re that much better off with an all volunteer force. With today’s technology and geo-political climate a volunteer force functions as well or better than a conscript military and doesn’t have all the political baggage attached to it that the draft does. There is nothing inherently better about a volunteer army than a conscripted army; the Wehrmacht was a conscript army. The IDF is a conscript army. A lack of skill or competence isn’t a description that sits well with either, and neither would have been or will be improved by shifting to an all volunteer force.
While this makes for a great argument emotively, it falls apart in the cold hard face of human nature. One may as well say if there is a real national emergency, people will volunteer their money, there will be no need to tax to pay for it. It’s the heart and soul of liberty.
:D:D
Apparently you didn’t. Otherwise you’d know that size and strength difference overlap between men and women. I think it would be more accurate to say that you never thought before offering this debate, because every “argument” you’ve put forth has been shot down.
Feminist signs up for the Selective Service: Military Equality, In Her View, Includes the Draft - Women's eNews
Since the OP can’t find a single cite of a feminist saying that women (but not men) should be exempt from the draft, I believe this debate is over.
And I wish the OP would just clearly state his case, which if I am inferring correctly, is that women have no chance of shooting straight because boobs get in the way of holding a rifle correctly. Plus they will be worried about breaking a nail if they ever get in hand-to-hand combat against a man the size of The Rock. And then their platoon is going to get really ornery once a month. And men drive tanks like THIS, but women drive tanks like THIS! Hahaha, amIrightfellas?
Boobs.